https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771179 SC dismissed special leave petitions challenging rejection of applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The suit concerned partition and possession of alleged joint family properties. Defendant No.2 could not challenge the rejection as she neither filed the application nor revision, thus acquiescing to trial court jurisdiction. Defendant Nos.5 and 6, being subsequent purchasers, lacked knowledge of property's original nature and standing to move rejection applications. Court held plaint rejection inappropriate where Benami Act exceptions create disputed factual questions requiring evidence. Section 14 doesn't bar suits regarding female Hindu property ownership. Parties retain right to contest on merits with relevant issues framed during trial. en-us Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 May 2025 08:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771179 SC dismissed special leave petitions challenging rejection of applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The suit concerned partition and possession of alleged joint family properties. Defendant No.2 could not challenge the rejection as she neither filed the application nor revision, thus acquiescing to trial court jurisdiction. Defendant Nos.5 and 6, being subsequent purchasers, lacked knowledge of property's original nature and standing to move rejection applications. Court held plaint rejection inappropriate where Benami Act exceptions create disputed factual questions requiring evidence. Section 14 doesn't bar suits regarding female Hindu property ownership. Parties retain right to contest on merits with relevant issues framed during trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771179