Plaintiff claimed to be co-owner of 25 per cent share in suit property which was purchased by his deceased father in name of mother vide registered deed, on grounds that consideration was paid by his father and thus, after his death it devolved to his sons, including plaintiff.  Plaintiff had further sought relief of cancellation of gift deed executed by mother, in favour of defendant no. 1 on contention that instant case would fall within well recognized exceptions under Benami Act, i.e., husband purchasing property in name of wife, to be held by wife in name only, for benefit of husband and/or entire family. Defendant no. 1 filed instant application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint on contention that said suit was barred by limitation.  It was also found that present transaction was of year 1970 i.e. before enactment of Benami Act not only recorded owner, i.e. mother alone, but rather entire family stayed in suit property.  Furthermore, original title deed of suit property was not in possession of mother, but in possession of plaintiff. Court held that  disputed questions raised on behalf of parties, could not be decided at time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and thus, suit could not be dismissed at this stage merely based on contention raised on behalf of defendant no. 1 that suit was barred by Benami Act.  Cause of action in favour of plaintiff wherein plaintiff had asserted his title and ownership to share in suit property and reading of plaint did not disclose prima facie that plaint was barred by any law, therefore, plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a summary manner without trial.