The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, particularly Section 4(1), and the rebuttable presumption under Section 3(2) in the context of the suit property.

The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by an order dated 29-12-2007 passed in Civil Suit No. 20-A of 2007 by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur whereby on an application filed by the respondents/ defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC the suit was dismissed as barred under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988).

2. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant No. 2 are the sons of respondent/defendant No. 1 - Smt. Hemlata Dwivedi, who is the widow of Babulal Dwivedi. A registered sale deed was executed on 11-10-1974 wherein Smt. Hemlata Dwivedi was shown as the purchaser of the suit property. On 11-4-2005. Hemlata Dwivedi executed a sale deed of the suit property in the name of respondent No. 2 and his wife/respondent No. 3. It is also not in dispute that in Civil Suit No. 43-A/2005 instituted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against respondent No. 1/Smt. Hemlata Dwivedi for declaration of title and possession over the suit property, a compromise was effected in Lok Adalat on 25-9-2005 between the parties whereupon the suit was decreed while declaring that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the owners and in possession of the suit property and were entitled to have their name mutated over the same.

3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit praying for the following reliefs :

(Vernacular matter omitted............Ed.)

4. It was averred by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint that late Babulal Dwivedi had purchased the suit property ostensibly in the name of Hemlata Dwivedi since official permission for the same was rejected by the Government. It was further pleaded that the sale deed of the suit property executed by Hemlata Dwivedi in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 was without consideration and got executed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from Hemlata Dwivedi taking undue advantage of fiduciary relationship. It was also averred that the mutation proceedings initiated by the respondents No. 2 and 3 was dismissed upon an objection preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. To overcome this, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in collusion with respondent No. 1 instituted a Civil Suit No. 43-A/2005 and fraudulently obtained a decree for declaration of title and possession from the Lok Adalat, Bilaspur.

5. The respondents/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 made an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under the Act of 1988. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application and held that the suit was barred under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1988.

6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. Record was perused.

7. It is well settled that for considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC the plaint averments are to be read as a whole. As held by the Apex Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2006) 7 SCC 510 para. 19 while considering an application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the various paragraphs in the plaint is not permissible because if such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as whole to ascertain its true import. It is thus trite law that the entire plaint and not merely a plea would be considered. In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487 : (AIR 1982 SC 1559), it was held that rejection only of a part of the plaint is not permissible under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. Therefore, where in a suit the plaintiff has claimed several reliefs, one of which is alleged to be barred under any law, the entire plaint shall not be liable for rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the present suit the relief for declaration that the decree obtained by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 from the Lok Adalat was void and not binding on the plaintiff was not ba