Appellant filed a suit for declaration of title with respect to premises and prayed that he be declared as owner of premises and that sale deed dated 24-7-2006 executed by his father i.e., first defendant, in favour of second defendant be cancelled. It was alleged that appellant had paid consideration for purchase of said premises in name of first defendant as first defendant was not having enough money to purchase said premises. However, second defendant got said premises transferred in his favour taking undue advantage of first defendant’s fragile health. Second defendant submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of plaint on ground that suit was barred under section 4. Court held that  since transactions falling under section 4(3)(b) are completely saved from mischief of section 4, question as regards whether matter comes within purview of section 4(3) is an aspect which must be gone into on strength of evidence on record . Question whether plea raised by appellant was barred under section 4 or not could not have been subject matter of assessment at stage when application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration. Accordingly matter required fuller and final consideration after evidence was led by parties and, therefore, suit filed by appellant could not be said to be barred under section 4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the view taken by the lower Courts is set aside and the application preferred by the second defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is dismissed. Since the suit has been pending since 2006, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the pending suit as early as possible and preferably within six months.