Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. By this order I propose to dispose of the above application filed 0 behalf of defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 CP seeking rejection of the plaint. The Plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of partition of the suit property and for a decree of injunction against defendant No.1 restraining the said defendant from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.

2. The broad facts which have been pleaded in the plaint or can b otherwise culled out from the documents filed are that the Plaintiff (excluding Plaintiff No. 3) and the defendants are all sons and daughters of Late S. Sucha Singh Anand, albeit, from different wives. Plaintiff No.3 i, the third wife of Late S. Sucha Singh Anand. Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendants No.2 and 5 are born from Plaintiff No. 3. Defendant No.1, 3, 4 6 and 7 are the children of the second wife of Late S. Sucha Singh Anand, There were no issues from the first wife:

3. Late S. Sucha Singh Anand and Plaintiff No.3 had from their own income and funds purchased the lease hold rights in the property an premises bearing No.6, Cavalry Lines, Mall Road, Delhi-110007 for the residence of all their family members. The entire sale consideration amounting to Rs. 2,05,000/- flowed from Late S. Sucha Singh Anand and the Plaintiff No.3. The said property was purchased by the aforesaid persons as a joint family property and Conveyance Deed dated 1.11.1961 was executed in the name of defendant No. 1.

4. At the relevant time when the conveyance was got executed in the name of defendant No.1, the eldest son (defendant No.3) was in the USA and since defendant No.1 was the second major son of Late S. Sucha Singh, the property was purchased in his name as a trustee of the entire family. This was the understanding between all members of the family upto the filing of the suit. The Plaintiff and defendants resided together in the said property and in course of time, only Late S. Sucha Singh, Plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were left in the physical possession of the property, though the property still remained a joint family property of all. Even upon the demise of Late Sucha Singh Anand on 6.3.2000 his legal heirs continued in occupation of the said property in the manner in which they were in possession prior to his demise. Thus, the entitlement of other legal heirs of late S. Sucha Singh to the suit property was never disputed at any time and the defendant No.1 had been holding the said property as a nominee and trustee of the Plaintiff No. 3, Late S. Sucha Singh and the entire family.

5. Since the defendant No.1 had with a malafide intention got a notice published in the Statesman on 22nd July 2006 and was negotiating/attempting to dispose of the suit property, the Plaintiffs were constrained to file the instant suit on 18.8.2006.

6. The defendant has filed the above application on primarily two grounds. It is pleaded that the plaint has been filed, pleading that the defendant No.1 is the Benami owner of the suit property and since the suit has been filed to enforce rights in respect of the property held Benami, the suit is barred by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Benami Act). The Plaintiffs have no where pleaded that they are the co-owner of the said property and their own case is that all the documents of title pertaining to the suit property are exclusively in the name of the defendant/applicant. It is stated that there are only two recognized exceptions to the Rule that a suit shall not lie against a registered owner of a property. The first exception is that the property is owned by a co-parcener of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). However, Plaintiffs have not brought their case within this exception and there is no mention of a HUF and the title of the property being vested in the said HUF. The details of the Karta and co-parcener of the HUF and other facts establishing the e