Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Suit Challenging Benami Ownership Is Not Barred at Threshold – Triable Issues Cannot Be Dismissed Without Evidence: Allahabad High Court

“Fiduciary Relationship and Single Cause of Action Make Plaintiff’s Claim Maintainable – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Cannot Be Used to Shut the Doors of Justice” - In a significant judgment dated 25th September 2025, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal filed by Shailesh Kumar against the rejection of his suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the trial court in Gautam Buddha Nagar. The Court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim, which involved allegations of benami transactions and fiduciary relationships over two immovable properties in separate districts, raised triable issues, and hence could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage.

Justice Sandeep Jain, delivering the verdict, set aside the trial court’s order dated 04.05.2022 and held that the rejection of the plaint was perverse and unsustainable, emphasizing that jurisdiction, benami claims, and fiduciary exceptions require full trial and cannot be summarily determined at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

“Suit for Properties in Two Districts Based on Common Cause of Action is Maintainable Under Section 17 CPC” – Trial Court Misapplied Law on Jurisdiction

The primary legal issue raised was whether the civil court in Gautam Buddha Nagar had jurisdiction to entertain a suit concerning two immovable properties, one located in Noida (Gautam Buddha Nagar) and the other in Auraiya.

Rejecting the trial court’s conclusion that the suit was barred for want of jurisdiction, the High Court observed:

“From the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivnarayan (D) by LRs. vs. Maniklal (D) Through LRs. & Ors., it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the relief of declaration of ownership of the disputed properties situated in District Gautam Buddha Nagar and Auraiya, is maintainable in the civil court of District Gautam Buddha Nagar, because the cause of action of both the suits was same.” [Para 24]

Referring to Section 17 of CPC, the Court reiterated that where the cause of action is common, a suit for properties in different jurisdictions may be filed in any court where one or more properties are situated.

“Whether Property is Benami or Not Requires Trial – Burden Lies on Alleging Party” – Court Refuses Summary Dismissal on Benami Grounds

The trial court’s reasoning that the suit was barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, was found untenable. The High Court relied on multiple Supreme Court decisions to hold:

“Whether the matter falls within the purview of exception under Section 4(3) of the Act of 1988 or not, is an aspect which is to be gone into on the strength of the evidence on record. Only on the basis of the plaint averments, it cannot be decided that the plaintiff’s suit is barred under Section 4(1) of the Act.” [Para 37]

The Court noted that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that he purchased the properties from his own funds but got them registered in the name of the defendant (his wife) due to emotional and familial pressures, and that a power of attorney was executed by her in his favour. This gave rise to a plausible fiduciary relationship, covered under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act.

Citing Pushpalata v. Vijay Kumar (2022) and Shaifali Gupta v. Vidya Devi Gupta (2025), the Court held:

“The suit cannot be rejected merely because the property is alleged to be benami when the plaintiff has pleaded that the transaction falls within the statutory exception.”

“Absence of Relief for Cancellation of Lease Deed Not Fatal to Suit” – Declaratory Relief May Still Be Granted

The trial court had also dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not seek cancellation of the lease deed executed in the defendant’s favour. However, the High Court clarified:

“Whether the plaintiff should have claimed cancellation of the allotment dated 6.6.2003 in favour of the defendant by Noida or not, will depend upon whether the plaintiff is the real owner of the disputed property or not. At the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff’s suit cannot be rejected on this ground.” [Para 39]

The Court reiterated that declaratory relief is maintainable even without cancellation, depending on the final findings of fact and law in the trial.

“Emotional Pressure, Marital Relationship and Possession – All Triable Issues”

The plaintiff had detailed in his plaint that he was emotionally coerced into registering the property in the defendant’s name, whom he claimed to have married under Arya Samaj rituals. He also claimed that he remained in possession of the Noida property and incurred significant expenditure for his wife's son.

Referring to the power of attorney dated 27.4.2013, the Court noted:

“This power-of-attorney relates to the disputed immovable property situated in District Auraiya and specifically mentions that the plaintiff is the husband of the defendant.” [Para 25]

The Court noted that these facts and circumstances establish a triable case and cannot be dismissed without evidence.

“Rejection of Suit at Preliminary Stage Defeats the Purpose of Civil Justice” – Only Plaint Allegations and Plaintiff’s Documents to Be Considered under Order 7 Rule 11

In reliance on the Supreme Court judgments in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia (2025) and Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood (2023), the High Court reiterated:

“At the preliminary stage of deciding Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims.” [Para 19]

“If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected.”

The trial court’s approach, which evaluated the merits and probative value of the plaintiff’s evidence, was held to be a material illegality.

Final Relief: Appeal Allowed, Suit Restored, Trial to be Completed in Six Months

Having held that the trial court committed “material illegality” in rejecting the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the original suit (O.S. No. 465 of 2017).

“The impugned judgment and decree dated 4.5.2022 of the trial court... is set aside. The defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stands dismissed. The suit is restored to its original number.” [Para 41]

The Court also directed that:

“The trial court is directed to decide the suit within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to any party.” [Para 42]

The Court declined to impose costs on either party and vacated any interim orders.

This judgment by the Allahabad High Court serves as a vital reaffirmation of procedural fairness in civil trials. By emphasizing that triable issues relating to benami claims, fiduciary relationships, and declaratory reliefs must be decided through evidence and not summarily, the Court has fortified the boundaries of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and preserved the litigant’s right to trial under Section 96 CPC.

It also reinforces the principle that statutory bars like Section 4 of the Benami Act must be carefully applied, especially when the plaintiff pleads facts that might invoke statutory exceptions, such as fiduciary capacity or spousal relationship.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025