Birendra Kumar Sinha alias Virendra Kumar SinhaversusRaj karan Chaudhary

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           FIRST APPEAL No.172 of 2012
     ======================================================
1.1. Aditya Pratap Sinha Son of late Birendra Kumar Sinha @ Virendra Kumar
      Sinha, Resident of Nina Niketan, Thana Road, Muhalla - Bhabdeopur, P.S.
      and District- Sitamarhi.

1.2. Laxmi D/o late Birendra Kumar Sinha @ Virendra Kumar Sinha, Resident
     of Nina Niketan, Thana Road, Muhalla - Bhabdeopur, P.S. and District-
     Sitamarhi.

1.3. Shatakshi D/o Late Birendra Kumar Sinha @ Virendra Kumar Sinha,
     Resident of Nina Niketan, Thana Road, Muhalla - Bhabdeopur, P.S. and
     District- Sitamarhi.



                                                                   ... ... Appellant/s
                                         Versus
1.   Raj karan Chaudhary Son of Late Jagdeo Chaudhary, Resident of Village
     Pachgachhia, P.O. - Sirauli, P.S. Bathnaha, Distt. - Sitamarhi.


2.   Krishna Devi Wife of Sri Raj Karan Chaudhary, Resident of Village
     Pachgachhia, P.O. - Sirauli, P.S. Bathnaha, Distt. - Sitamarhi.

3.   Pintu Kumar Son of Ramjee Sah Resident of Janki Sthan, Sitamarhi, Ward
     No. 1, P.S. and Distt. - Sitamarhi.



                                                                 ... ... Respondent/s

     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant/s           :       Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh
     For the Respondent/s          :       Mr. Shankar Kumar
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
     MALVIYA
                          CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 28-01-2026
                    The present First Appeal has been filed under

      Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred

      to as “CPC”) against the Judgment & decree dated 04.06.2012
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           2/27




         passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge 1st Sitamarhi, in Title

         Suit No. 196 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed

         on behalf of petitioner under Order VII rule 11(d) of the CPC

         was rejected as the same is barred under Section 4 of the

         Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988

         (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

                             2. The case of the plaintiff in brief, is that the

         defendant no. 2 is the mameri sister of plaintiff and defendant

         no.1 is the husband of defendant no. 2. There is very close and

         cordial relations among the plaintiff and both the defendants no

         1 and 2 and on account of such close relationship and mutual

         confidence, the plaintiff purchased in the year 1980 lands

         measuring 17.5 decimals of Plot No. 262, 9.5 decimals of Plot

         No. 265 and 14.5 decimals of Plot No. 264 situated at Mauza,

         Sitamarhi Bazar, the detail of the land is mentioned under

         schedule 1 of the plaint, through two registered sale deeds dated

         02.01.1980. However the sale deeds were registered in the

         names of defendant nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff was retired

         government employee under Road Construction Department of

         Government of Bihar. It is specific case of the plaintiff that at

         the relevant time the plaintiff was in Government service and

         due to certain technical and service-related constraints he could
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           3/27




         not purchase the lands in his own name as well as in the names

         of his family members, and therefore, with the consent of the

         defendant nos. 1 and 2, the sale deeds were obtained in their

         names, they being merely name-lenders, while the entire

         consideration was paid by the plaintiff.

                             3. It is further alleged in the plaint that the

         plaintiff is the real purchaser of the land, paid the entire

         consideration money and came in exclusive and peaceful

         possession over the disputed land since the date of purchase.

         The defendants are simply name lenders of the plaintiff. The

         original sale deed is in the custody of the plaintiff and the

         defendants have no right, title and interest in the disputed land

         nor have they ever come in the possession of the land in

         question.

                             4. Furthermore, the case of the plaintiff as stated

         in the plaint is that the plaintiff constructed a residential house

         over the disputed land and from roadside he constructed

         commercial shops and let out to different persons for carrying

         business for which they are paying rent to the plaintiff and in the

         aforesaid residential house the plaintiff is residing along with his

         family members. It is further alleged that the defendant nos. 1

         and 2 never came in possession of the suit land and have no
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           4/27




         right, title or interest therein, but taking advantage of the sale

         deeds dated 02.01.1980 standing in their names, they started

         creating obstruction and attempted to alienate a portion of the

         suit land, which gave rise to the cause of action in April 2011,

         culminating in the filing of the suit seeking declaration that the

         defendant nos. 1 and 2 are merely name-lenders, declaration of

         the plaintiff’s title and confirmation of possession, along with

         consequential injunction.

                             5. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 in their joint

         written statement denied the claim of the appellant/plaintiff and

         stated that the suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the

         suit is barred by estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and also by

         limitation. It is stated that the plaintiff has no cause of action or

         locus standi to file the suit. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have

         specifically asserted that the suit is hit by the provisions of the

         Act and is also barred under the provisions of the Bihar

         Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act,

         1956 as consolidation operations are applicable in that area. It is

         further stated that the suit property has been grossly

         undervalued and proper court fee has not been paid, the market

         value of the land being much higher than what has been shown

         by the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           5/27




         categorically denied that the plaintiff purchased the suit land or

         paid the consideration amount, or that the defendant nos. 1 and

         2 were name-lenders or benamidars. It has been asserted that

         defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 independently purchased

         the respective portions of the suit land by registered sale deeds

         dated 02.01.1980 out of their own funds, came in possession

         thereof from the date of purchase, got their names mutated, paid

         rent and municipal dues, and constructed residential houses and

         shops at their own expense. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have

         further denied the alleged cordial relationship or fiduciary

         confidence pleaded by the plaintiff and have stated that the

         plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land, and has never

         constructed any house or shops, and never collected rent from

         any tenant. It is also stated that the plaintiff is not in custody of

         the original sale deeds, as only certified copies were filed, which

         itself falsifies the entire claim. It is, therefore, stated that the

         plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land and is not

         entitled to any relief, declaratory or injunctive.

                             6. Moreover, on 23.04.2012, an application under

         Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the

         intervenor, namely Pintu Kumar, praying for rejection of the

         plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           6/27




         by law, particularly under Section 4 of the Act, and the plaint

         did not disclose any cause of action. It is further evident from

         the record that the said intervenor claimed interest in a portion

         of the suit land on the basis of subsequent registered sale deed

         executed in his favour by the defendant no. 1. The learned Trial

         Court allowed his prayer for impleadment as a defendant and

         while considering his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the

         CPC, proceeded to examine the maintainability of the suit at the

         threshold.

                             7. After hearing both the parties, upon due

         consideration of the pleadings, materials available on record,

         and the settled position of law, the learned Trial Court found that

         the core controversy in the present case is crystallized into two

         determinative issues for adjudication, namely, first, whether the

         present suit was instituted after the coming into force of the

         Act?; and second, if so, whether the provisions of the Act

         operate as a statutory bar to the maintainability of the suit?

                             8. Based on facts and circumstances of the case

         and upon consideration of the materials available on record,

         learned Trial Court held that although earlier benami

         transactions were not invalidated retrospectively, the present suit

         having been instituted after the coming into force of the Act,
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           7/27




         was squarely governed by the provisions of the said Act. The

         learned Trial Court concluded that the reliefs claimed by the

         plaintiff were barred by Section 4 of the Act, as the plaintiff

         sought to enforce rights in respect of property standing in the

         names of others on the plea of benami. It was further held that,

         in view of such statutory bar, the suit was not maintainable and

         fell within the scope of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule

         11(d) of the CPC. On the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Trial

         Court accepted the application filed on behalf of defendant no.3

         (intervenor Pintu Kumar) dated 23.04.2012 and dismissed the

         suit as not maintainable.

                             9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

         04.06.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the

         plaint was rejected by allowing the application under Order VII

         Rule 11 of the CPC and the suit was dismissed as not

         maintainable on the ground of statutory bar under the Act.

         Hence, the present first appeal.

                             10. Learned counsel on the behalf of the

         appellant/plaintiff submitted that the learned Trial Court has

         failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record in their

         correct legal perspective and has committed a grave error in

         rejecting the plaint. He submits that the appellant/plaintiff had
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                            8/27




         specifically pleaded and proved that the entire consideration

         amount for purchase of the suit land was paid by him in the year

         1980 and that the sale deeds were obtained in the names of

         defendant nos. 1 and 2 only on account of close familial

         relationship and due to technical constraints arising out of the

         appellant/plaintiff being in government service at the relevant

         time.

                             10.i.     He          further   submitted   that   the

         appellant/plaintiff has been in exclusive, peaceful and

         continuous possession of the suit land since the date of purchase

         and he has constructed a residential house and commercial

         shops thereon. Moreover, he is residing with his family

         members and has inducted tenants, and has been paying

         municipal taxes and electricity charges, all of which clearly

         establish his possession and enjoyment of the suit property as

         the real owner.

                             10.ii. He further submitted that the defendant

         nos. 1 and 2 never came in possession of the suit land and have

         not produced any evidence to show exercise of ownership

         rights. The learned Trial Court failed to draw the correct

         inference from long, uninterrupted possession coupled with

         payment of consideration and custody of original sale deeds by
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           9/27




         the appellant/plaintiff. He further submitted that the cause of

         action clearly arose when the defendant nos. 1 and 2, taking

         advantage of the sale deeds standing in their names, attempted

         to create third-party interest, necessitating the filing of the suit.

                             10.iii. He further submitted that the two sale

         deeds in question were registered on 02.01.1980 and the Act

         came into force on 05.09.1988. Hon’ble Apex Court in R.

         Rajagopal and Ors. v. Padmini Chandrasekharan reported in

         AIR 1996 SC 238 has held that the provision of Section 4 of the

         Act would not have retrospective effect and hence the suit in

         question would not be barred by Section 4 of the Act. The

         heading of Section 4 of the Act i.e., “Prohibition of the right to

         recover property held Benami” suggests that it prohibits right to

         recover property held Benami, but in the instant case there is no

         case for “recovery of property” from benamidar, in as much as,

         the property in suit is not in possession of benamidar. The

         specific case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he has been coming

         in possession of the suit land since its purchase on 02.01.1980

         and he has constructed his residential house over the land where

         he is residing along with his family and he has constructed some

         shops over the suit land, which have been let out to different

         persons and a holding has been created in the name of the
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           10/27




         appellant/plaintiff and electric connection in the house has been

         taken in the name of his father and the entire premise is in one

         compact block within boundary wall and hence in the facts of

         the case the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for confirmation of his

         possession over the suit land, but the learned Trial Court has

         failed to take into consideration these aspect of the case and has

         illegally rejected the plaint on the basis of provision of Section 4

         of the Act.

                             10.iv. He further submitted that even assuming

         for the sake of argument, though not accepting, that the suit is

         barred by Section 4 of the Act, the benamidar's right to property

         under suit has been extinguished by operation of Section 27 of

         the Limitation Act, 1963 and the question as to whether

         ownership and possession can be pleaded alternatively is

         required to be considered at trial and it would not make the

         plaint barred by the provision of Section 4 of the Act. Moreover

         rejection of plaint must be on the basis of averments in plaint,

         for this he placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon’ble

         Apex Court in Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh and Ors. reported in

         (2012) 8 SCC 701 and Church of Christ Charitable Trust &

         Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational

         Trust, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706.
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           11/27




                             10.v. He further submitted that from bare perusal

         of the plaint it would appear that complicated pleas and factual

         aspects are involved in the case and the same could be denied

         only at the time of trial and these aspects of the suit/case

         remained untouched by the learned Trial Court while deciding

         application for rejection of plaint as held by the Hon'ble Apex

         Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State Of

         Maharashtra and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 759 and hence,

         rejection of plaint at the threshold of the proceeding is wholly

         illegal and unjustified. He further contended that the law is well-

         settled on the point that the power of rejection of plaint should

         be exercised sparingly and cautiously, as the provision related to

         rejection of the plaint, as envisaged under Order VII Rule 11 of

         the CPC are aimed at preventing vexatious and frivolous

         litigation, but the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned

         judgment and decree without taking into consideration these

         important aspects of the case.

                             10.vi. He lastly submits that for the aforesaid

         grounds, the impugned judgment and decree are unsustainable

         in law and on facts and are liable to be set aside and the suit of

         the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be decreed as prayed for.

                             11. Per contra, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           12/27




         respondents/defendant nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the original

         registered sale deeds dated 02.01.1980 were not filed along with

         the plaint rather the certified copy of both the sale deeds were

         filed on 28.07.2011 with plaint which itself proves that

         appellant/plaintiff had no original registered sale deeds as

         claimed by him. He further submitted that the appellant/plaintiff

         requested the defendants nos. 1 and 2 for relinquishing their

         claim from the suit property, which was refused by them. He

         further submitted that when the plaintiff/appellant got the

         knowledge that original defendant no.1 sold some part of suit

         land in favour of defendant no. 3, hence necessity arose for

         filing the suit.

                             11.i. Learned counsel further submitted that the

         plaintiff/appellant preferred Mutation Appeal no. 46 of 2011-12

         before the Court of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sitamarhi

         Sadar, challenging the aforesaid order which was dismissed vide

         order dated 14.06.2013 confirming the peaceful possession of

         original defendant nos. 1 and 2 over the suit land since

         02.01.1980. These documents are already on record annexed

         with I.A. No. 05 of 2025 of this appeal for better appreciation

         and for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. These documents

         falsified the claim of plaintiff/appellant's peaceful possession
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           13/27




         over the suit property at any mount.

                             11.ii. He further relied on the judgment passed by

         Hon’ble Apex Court in Mithilesh Kumari & Anr. v. Prem

         Behari Khare reported in AIR 1989 SC 1247 and in Om

         Prakash and anr v. Jai Prakash reported in AIR 1992 SC 885

         in which it has been held that Section 4 of the Act is total

         prohibition against any suit based on benami transaction. He

         further submitted that the learned Trial Court heard the matter at

         length and rightly came to the finding that the suit is barred by

         Section 4 of Act thereafter, dismissed the suit as not

         maintainable. He lastly contended that in view of the aforesaid

         reasons, the present appeal is not maintainable and fit to be

         dismissed.

                             12. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant

         no. 3 submitted that respondent no. 3 purchased the 10 decimal

         of disputed land from respondent no.1 through the registered

         sale deed dated 05.04.2011. He further submitted that at the time

         of taking possession of purchased land the appellant/petitioner

         claimed his title over the said property and alleged that he had

         purchased the said land in the name of respondent nos. 1 and 2

         as they were the close relatives of the appellant/petitioner.

         Thereafter appellant/petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 196 of
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           14/27




         2011, wherein he failed to produce any document or proof of

         transaction in order to support his claim. He further submitted

         that the contentions of the appellant/petitioner are false and even

         if it is assume that disputed property was purchased by the

         appellant/petitioner, without admitting to the same, then the

         same property shall be considered as a benami property and as

         such the same is barred by Section 4 of Act.

                             12.i. He further submitted that on being satisfied

         by the averments advanced by the respondent no. 3, the learned

         Trial     Court      categorically        rejected   the   claim   of   the

         appellant/petitioner and allowed application under Order VII

         Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of plaint dated 23.04.2012,

         filed by the respondent/defendant no. 3 and was further pleased

         to dismiss the aforementioned suit. It is further submitted that

         after legally purchasing the land in question from respondent no.

         1, by way of valid transaction and also after the judgment and

         decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the respondent no. 3

         was able to take possession over the said portion of land

         purchased by him. After taking possession of the said portion of

         land, respondent no. 3 applied for its mutation which was

         rejected by the Circle Officer, Riga. Further, respondent no. 3

         preferred an appeal before the learned DCLR, wherein the said
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           15/27




         portion of land was mutated under the name of the respondent

         no. 3 and thereafter, land receipts were also issued in the name

         of the respondent no. 3.

                             12.ii. He further submitted that it would not be

         out of place to refer that the respondent no. 3 in the year 2019,

         had sold about 4 decimals of land from the share purchased by

         him in the year 2011 and as such presently, he only has about 6

         decimals of land under his possession. In the year 2023, after

         the demises of the original appellant/plaintiff, his son namely,

         Aditya Pratap Sinha, preferred a Mutation Appeal No. 71 of

         2023-24, in which he challenged the earlier Order passed by the

         learned DCLR, Sitamarhi in Mutation Appeal No. 1567 of

         2018-19, whereby the learned DCLR, Sitamarhi had allowed the

         mutation in favor of respondent no. 3.

                             12.iii. He further submitted that even though

         Mutation Appeal No. 71 of 2023 -24, was barred by the doctrine

         of Res Judicata, despite that the said appeal was entertained and

         allowed by the learned DCLR Sitamarhi, in a mechanical

         manner, as such being aggrieved by the said order, the

         respondent no. 3 has presently preferred a revision application

         before the learned ADM, Sitamarhi bearing Case No. 63 of 2023

         24, challenging the Order dated 07.06.2023, passed in Mutation
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           16/27




         Appeal No. 71 of 2023-24, which is pending adjudication.

                             12.iv. He further submitted that the suit is barred

         under Section 4 of the Act, which stipulates that there is a bar of

         any suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any

         property held benami against the person in whose name the

         property is held or against any other person, shall lie by or on

         behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such

         property. Further, Section 4 of the Act the said also enumerates

         that no defence based on any right in respect of any property

         held benami, whether against the person in whose name the

         property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in

         any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to

         be the real owner of such property.

                             12.v. He further submitted that the learned Trial

         Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and rejected the

         plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11(d)

         of the CPC, as the suit is barred under Section 4 of the Act. The

         appellant/plaintiff has admittedly filed the suit in the year 2012,

         after enforcement of the Act, thus a suit of civil nature for

         enforcement of benami right was barred in the year 2012, in-

         terms of the aforesaid section of the Act. In consequent

         therewith, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the suit
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           17/27




         under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, as the aforesaid legal

         position is well apparent from bare perusal of the plaint itself.

         Learned counsel, in support of his averments, relied on the

         judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mithlesh Kumari(supra),

         and in R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by lrs. & Ors. v. Padmini

         Chandrasekharan (Dead) by lrs, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 63.

                             12.vi. It is next submitted that the present appeal

         is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in approaching

         this Court, as allegedly the cause of action arose for the

         appellant/plaintiff in the year 1982 itself when he had allegedly

         purchased the land in question. Nonetheless, in the year 2012,

         the appellant/plaintiff approached any court of law for the

         maiden time, which demonstrates that he patiently waited for

         about 30 years before approaching any court. Hence, the rule of

         laches and delay may be employed by this Court as a tool for

         administration of justice and a bulwark against abuse of the

         process of courts. He further submitted that, in cases, where

         claims are filed after inordinate delay, then lives and affairs of

         the concerned individuals and institutions would be in disarray

         for no fault of the other party, who has genuine right over the

         alleged claim. Also, their lives and affairs would be clouded

         with uncertainty and they would face prospects of long and
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           18/27




         fruitless litigation, despite owning the said property legally. It is

         submitted that the respondent no. 3 has legally purchased the

         aforementioned portion of the land in question after paying the

         legal stamp duty, however, still for no fault, he has been

         contesting legal battels since the year 2012.

                             12.vii. He further submitted that the present

         appeal does not merit consideration and deserves to be

         dismissed at once on account of non-joining of necessary party

         by the appellant/plaintiff. It is stated that after purchasing 10

         decimals of land from respondent no. 1, by way of registered

         sale deed dated 15.04.2011 and subsequently sold about 4

         decimals of land in the year 2019 to a third party, the respondent

         no. 3 becomes a necessary party. Despite knowing the said fact,

         the appellant/plaintiff has not inducted the said respondent as

         party to the suit, this in itself is a ground for dismissal of the

         present appeal. He further submitted that for a suit to be bad for

         non-joinder of party, it has to be proved that the party who has

         not been impleaded in the suit is a necessary party without

         whose presence the suit cannot be decided, thus, when the

         aforementioned portion of land in question was sold in the year

         2019, it was incumbent upon the appellant/plaintiff to implead

         respondent no. 3 as a party in the present appeal.
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           19/27




                             12.viii.              Learned   counsel     for

         respondent/defendant no.3 lastly submitted that the plaint filed

         by the appellant/plaintiff has rightly been dismissed by the

         learned Trial Court after going through the merits of the case

         and after hearing the parties at length and even after considering

         the reply of all the parties. It is submitted that the remedy under

         Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is an independent and special

         remedy, wherein the court concerned is empowered to

         summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to

         record evidence and conducting a trial, on the basis of the

         evidence adduced, provided it is satisfied that the action should

         be terminated on any of the grounds contained in the said

         provision. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the learned

         Trial Court is correct and has rightly been dismissed warranting

         no interference by this Court. Therefore, in view of the

         submissions made above, this first appeal is fit to be dismissed

         and the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any relief prayed in

         the present first appeal.

                             13. Having heard the learned counsels for the

         parties and considering the submissions advanced by them, the

         point of determination arises before this Court for consideration

         in this first appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           20/27




         the case the learned Trial Court is justified in rejecting the

         plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC?

                             14. At this stage it is pertinent to examine the

         scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC explained in various

         decisions and the legal principles deducible. The Hon’ble Apex

         Court in Kamla and Others Vs K.T. Eshwara Sa and Others

         reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661 held that for invoking clause (d)

         of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averment in the plaint

         would be relevant. For this purpose, there cannot be any

         addition or subtraction. No amount of evidence can be looked

         into. The issue on merit of the matter would not be within the

         realm of the Court this stage. The material to be considered for

         rejecting the plaint has been dealt with in the case of Dahiben v.

         Arvind Bhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) SCC

         OnLine SC 563 The Apex court has settled the principle and

         made the following observations:

                                   “12.6- At this stage, the pleas taken by the
                                   defendant in the written statement and
                                   application for rejection of the plaint on
                                   the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot
                                   be adverted to, or taken into consideration.
                                  “12.7- The test for exercising the power
                                  under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the
                                  averments made in the plaint are taken
                                  entirety, in conjunction with the documents
                                  relied upon, would the same result in a
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           21/27




                                  decree being passed”.
                                  “23.2. The remedy under Order7 Rule11 is
                                  an independent and special remedy, wherein
                                  the Court is empowered to summarily
                                  dismiss a suit at the threshold, without
                                  proceeding to record evidence, and
                                  conducting a trial, on the basis of the
                                  evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the
                                  action should be terminated on any of the
                                  grounds contained in this provision.
                                  23.5. The power conferred on the court to
                                  terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic
                                  one, and the conditions enumerated in Order
                                  7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered
                                  to.
                                  23.9. In exercise of power under this
                                  provision, the Court would determine if the
                                  assertions made in the plaint are contrary
                                  to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for
                                  deciding whether a case for rejecting the
                                  plaint at the threshold is made out.
                                  23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the
                                  defendant in the written statement and
                                  application for rejection of the plaint
                                  [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity Commr.
                                  (2004) 3 SCC 137] on the merits, would be
                                  irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or
                                  taken into consideration.
                                  23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P.)Ltd. v. Hede &
                                  Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614 the Court further
                                  held that it is not permissible to cull out a
                                  sentence or a passage, and to read it in
                                  isolation. It is the substance, and not
                                  merely the form, which has to be looked
                                  into. The plaint has to be construed as it
                                  stands, without addition or subtraction of
                                  words. If the allegations in the plaint prima
                                  facie show a cause of action, the court
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           22/27




                                  cannot embark upon an enquiry whether
                                  the allegations are true in fact. D.
                                  Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman
                                  [D.Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman,
                                  (1999)3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap
                                  Singh Vs. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR
                                  1962 SC 941].
                                  23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the
                                  plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly
                                  vexatious and without any merit, and does
                                  not disclose a right to sue, the court would
                                  be justified in exercising the power under
                                  Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
                                  23.15. The provision of Order VII Rule 11is
                                  mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint
                                  "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds
                                  specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. If
                                  the Court finds that the plaint does not
                                  disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is
                                  barred by any law, the Court has no option,
                                  but to reject the plaint.

                             15. The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the said

         principle in Kum. Geetha Vs. Nanjundaswamy & Ors. reported

         in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407 and observed in para 7 that in

         simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully

         and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the

         plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under

         Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively,

         where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be

         rejected.
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           23/27




                             16. On meticulously examination of the aforesaid

         facts and circumstance, I am of the considered opinion that the

         genuineness and validity of the sale deed in question can only

         be examined after proper adjudication of the suit at the stage of

         trial. Moreover, a plaint cannot be rejected at the initial stage

         based on applicability of Section 4 of the Act. This is because

         rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC requires

         the court concerned to look only at the averments in the plaint

         and documents attached therewith. The Hon’ble Apex Court in

         the case of Shaifali Gupta v. Vidya Devi Gupta and others

         reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1181 held that:

                                  “27. In such circumstances, whether a
                                  property is a benami, has to be considered
                                  not in the light of Section 4 of the Benami
                                  Act alone but also in connection with
                                  Sections 2 (8) and 2 (9) of the said Act i.e.
                                  whether the property if benami falls in the
                                  exception. It is only where the property is
                                  benami and does not fall within the
                                  exception contained in Sub-Section (9) of
                                  Section 2 that a suit may be said to be
                                  barred. However, the issue whether the
                                  property is benami and is not covered by
                                  the exception, is again an issue to be
                                  decided on the basis of evidence and not
                                  simply on mere averments contained in the
                                  plaint. The defendants have to adduce
                                  evidence to prove the property to be
                                  benami.”
                                  “28. In Pawan Kumar v. Babu Lal (2019) 4
                                  SCC 367, a similar issue arose before this
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           24/27




                                 Court in a matter concerning rejection of
                                 plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC.
                                 This Court held that for rejecting a plaint,
                                 the test is whether from the statement made
                                 in the plaint it appears without doubt or
                                 dispute that the suit is barred by any
                                 statutory provision. 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.”
                                               emphasis supplied.
                             17. Moreover, from the facts and circumstances

         of the instant case it appears that there is mixed question of law

         and fact that requires a full trial for proper adjudication after

         evidence has been presented. The application of Section 4 of the

         Act in the present case is a complex issue that requires further

         examining of evidence. At this stage, adjudicating on the point

         of benami transaction would be a premature determination of a

         mixed question of law and fact, which is only suitable for a trial

         after examination of evidence. Therefore, it cannot be decided

         merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection

         of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

                             18. In the present case, if the statements in the

         plaint are taken to be true, it cannot be said that it does not

         disclose a cause of action and the plaint shall be rejected. This is
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           25/27




         a matter of trial, the result of which would depend upon the

         evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiff. At this stage, the

         Court is not concerned with the correctness of the averments,

         except to state that the appellant/plaintiff has to discharge the

         burden of proving this case. Insofar as the application under

         Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is concerned, this court will proceed

         only that far, to examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of

         action or suit is barred by law and no further. The genuineness,

         validity and binding nature of document will have to be

         adjudicated at the appropriate stage in trial of the case after the

         parties adduce oral and documentary evidence.

                             19. At this outset, it is relevant to mention that

         the court concerned shall not reject the plaint based on a claim

         of benami transaction at the initial stage. The issue shall be

         addressed during the trial, after all parties had an opportunity to

         present their case as well as the evidence in support of their

         case.

                             20. So far as the ground of limitation is

         concerned, it is needless to emphasis that limitation is a mixed

         question of fact and law. The fact regarding the date on which

         the appellant/plaintiff was acquainted with the knowledge of the

         essential facts from which cause of action arose, is crucial for
Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                           26/27




         deciding the question whether the suit is barred by limitation or

         not. It becomes a triable issue and hence, the suit cannot be

         thrown out at the threshold. Law is well settled that a plaint

         cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC if the

         issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, such as,

         the date of knowledge of a cause of action, as it requires a full

         trial and evidence. In view thereof, such issues cannot be

         decided summarily without allowing the parties to lead evidence

         on arising of the cause of action.

                             21. In view of the aforesaid facts and

         circumstances and the law discussed above, the impugned

         judgment and decree is liable to be set aside.

                             22. The appeal is accordingly, allowed. The

         application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC is dismissed

         and the suit is hereby restored. The impugned judgment and

         decree is set aside and the learned Trial Court shall proceed with

         the trial of the suit. Both the parties are directed to appear before

         the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 196 of 2011. The

         learned Trial Court shall adjudicate the suit on its own merits in

         accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observation made

         by this Court in this judgment.

                             23. Let the Trial Court Record be returned to the
           Patna High Court FA No.172 of 2012 dt.28-01-2026
                                                      27/27




                    concerned Court forthwith.



                                          (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

Mayank/-

AFR/NAFR              AFR
CAV DATE              12.01.2026
Uploading Date        28.01.2026
Transmission          N/A
Date