High Court Restored Suit and Held Benami Plea Not Decidable at Order 7 Rule 11 Stage

A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Jain heard the first appeal arising from a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, where the principal question was whether the suit was barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The appeal challenged the trial court’s allowance of defendants’ application 89-C which had concluded that the suit was barred as the disputed property was allegedly benami.

The court allowed the appeal, held that the defence under the Benami Act raised a disputed question of fact and could not be decided at the threshold, and set aside the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint. The judge observed that at the stage of an Order 7 Rule 11 inquiry the court must confine itself to the plaint and documents filed therewith and not probe the defendants’ case or evidence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is true that the plaintiffs mother was not a coparcener in the alleged HUF but certainly, there was a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and his mother Sarla Dublish, which lies within the exception enumerated in Section 4(3)(b) of the Act of 1988. The disputed property could have been purchased in the name of plaintiffs mother Sarla Dublish because she was in fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis the plaintiff, who was also the wife of plaintiffs father Ramesh Chand Dublish. Even the plaintiffs father could have purchased the property in the name of his wife. In both the above situations, the bar of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988 is not attracted. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving that his mother was not having the financial capacity to purchase the disputed land of the property, as well as, to construct a house thereon, and the funds were provided by the plaintiff from the income of his firm or were obtained by selling the immovable property of the HUF, then certainly, the plaintiff's suit was not barred under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988... It is also well settled that whether the disputed property is Benami or not, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and the plaintiff 's suit cannot be rejected on this ground at the threshold.”

Background

The appellant, Sunil Kumar Dublish, had sued claiming ownership of house No. 342/1, Harnamdass Road, Civil Lines, Meerut, alleging that the property was purchased with family/HUF funds and income of a partnership firm and was held in the name of his mother, Smt. Sarla Dublish, as a benami. The plaint traced title to the appellant’s grandfather and a family partition in 1953; it alleged that subsequent transfers and alleged family settlements deprived the appellant of his share. Defendants moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that the plaint itself disclosed that the property was benami and hence barred under Section 4(1) of the Benami Act. The trial court accepted that plea, rejected the plaint and held that Section 4(1) barred the suit.

On appeal the High Court examined settled principles: at the threshold the court must examine only the plaint and documents filed with it; whether a property was benami and whether an exception under Section 4(3) applied were factual questions requiring evidence. The court quoted Section 4(1): “No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami … shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property,” and further relied on precedents including Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., Keshav Sood, Pushpalata, Marcel Martins and Pawan Kumar which held that exceptions under Section 4(3) and the presence of fiduciary relationships could take a case out of the bar and could not be decided on mere averments. Finding that the plaint alleged purchase from HUF funds and existence of a fiduciary relationship with the mother, the court concluded that triable issues arose and the plaint could not be summarily rejected.

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.8.2025, dismissed the defendants’ application 89‑C, restored O.S. No. 782 of 2006 to its original number and directed the trial court to decide the suit within six months. The court clarified that trial court was not bound by observations in the order and that parties would bear their respective costs.

Case Details: Case No.: FIRST APPEAL No. 978 of 2025; Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:29002; Court No. - 38 Case Title: Sunil Kumar Dublish v. Sri Ramesh Chandra Dublish (Since Dead) And 3 Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Durgesh Kumar Singh, Senior Counsel; Sudhir Kumar Malviya For the Respondent(s): Shiv Sagar Singh Judge: Hon’ble Sandeep Jain, J. Order Date: 10.02.2026