Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court held that a suit filed seeking partition of joint family property cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when a plea was taken that such property is saved by the exception to the benami transaction.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) if it is "ex facie barred by law" without requiring evidence, but the determination of whether the properties are benami or joint family assets involves factual inquiries (e.g., source of funds, family arrangements) that cannot be decided at the pleading stage, necessitating a trial to resolve factual disputes.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where the Respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, declaration, and injunction against the elder son, his wife, and others, alleging that the properties in question were joint family assets and saved by an exception to the benami transaction.

The Appellant/defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Benami Act) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1955.

Aggrieved by the trial court's and High Court's decision refusing to allow their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defendants approached the Supreme Court.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal at the outset, noted that since the plea was taken by the Respondent/plaintiff that the property held for the benefit of the joint family is covered under the exception under the Benami Transaction Act, therefore the partition suit of joint family property cannot be rejected at the preliminary stage as the determination of whether the properties are benami or joint family assets involves factual inquiries (e.g., source of funds, family arrangements) that cannot be decided at the pleading stage.

“Where a plea is taken that the suit is saved by the exception to the benami transaction, it becomes the disputed question of fact which has to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”, the court observed relying on the case of Pawan Kumar vs. Babu Lal, (2019) 4 SCC 367, where it was held that a plaint invoking exceptions to the Benami Act (e.g., joint family properties) cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court upheld the impugned finding, and resultantly, the appeals were dismissed.

Case Title: SMT. SHAIFALI GUPTA VERSUS SMT. VIDYA DEVI GUPTA & ORS. (& connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Click here to read/download the judgment