PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. IA.No.721/1997 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants praying that the plaint be rejected, has been allowed.

2. Learned Single Judge has opined that in view of the prohibition contained in the Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988, late Smt. Santosh Malik could not bring any action seeking partition and possession of property bearing No.B-6, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110044.

3. The legal heirs of Santosh Malik, who are litigating, on the death of Santosh Malik urged at the hearing of the appeal through their counsel that in view of Clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988, the suit would be maintainable. Additionally, counsel urged that the defence could not be looked into while deciding on the issue: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action?

4. We thus proceed our journey by noting the pleadings in the plaint.

5. The plaintiff, Santosh Malik pleaded in the plaint, that she is the daughter of late Dr. Ram Krishan and that the defendants, Maharaj Krishan and Iqbal Krishan are her brothers. She pleaded that M