https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419968 In an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and cannot test the defendant's version at that stage. A suit pleaded as involving joint Hindu family property was therefore not barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the plaint alone, and general maintainability objections were not decided preliminarily. Limitation, being dependent on disputed facts, was treated as a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, so it could not be decided at the threshold. The trial court's acceptance of valuation and court fee on the plaint basis was also found unobjectionable at that stage. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:21:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419968 In an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and cannot test the defendant's version at that stage. A suit pleaded as involving joint Hindu family property was therefore not barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the plaint alone, and general maintainability objections were not decided preliminarily. Limitation, being dependent on disputed facts, was treated as a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, so it could not be decided at the threshold. The trial court's acceptance of valuation and court fee on the plaint basis was also found unobjectionable at that stage. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419968