In Brief
A mother and younger son sued for partition and declaration of family properties, claiming they were joint Hindu family properties acquired through a family tailoring business. The defendants challenged the suit's maintainability under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, at the plaint rejection stage. The Supreme Court held that whether properties are benami or joint family property is a factual question requiring evidence at trial, not decidable on plaint averments alone under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court dismissed the special leave petitions, holding the lower courts correctly rejected the plaint rejection application and allowed the suit to proceed to trial on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.