JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

I.A. 15053/2021 (An application on behalf of defendant no. 5 Sh. Manjeet Singh & defendant no. 7 Sh. Ajit Singh under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of plaint)

1. This is an application on behalf of defendant Nos. 5 and 7 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The present is a suit for a partition, rendition of accounts, permanent injunction and declaration. Parties are Class I legal heirs of late Sh. Gurdial Singh, who passed away on 04.01.1998. Plaintiff No.1 is a resident of Norway. Therefore, he has authorized his nephew, plaintiff No. 2 to file the present suit by way of Special Power of Attorney dated 23.02.2018.

3. It is to be noted that late Gurdial Singh had three sons from his first wife, late Harkrishan Kaur, who passed away in 1946, viz.

(i) Sh. Atma Singh - plaintiff No. 1

(ii) Sh. Prem Singh - defendant No. 1.

(iii) Late Sher Singh

4. The said late Gurdial Singh had four sons and two daughters from his second wife, late Satwant Kaur, who passed away in 1994, viz.

(i) Sh. Manjeet Singh - defendant No. 5

(ii) Sh. Baldev Singh - defendant No. 6

(iii) Sh. Ajeet Singh - defendant No. 7

(iv) Mrs. Surinder Kaur - defendant No. 8

(v) Sh. Charajeet @ Ranjeet Singh - defendant No. 9

(vi) Late Ms. Manjeet Kaur

5. The present suit has been filed in respect of properties as detailed in Para 4 of the plaint as follows:

"(i) House No. 51, Main Bazar, Paharganj, Delhi

(ii) House No. 52, Main Bazar, Paharganj, Delhi (Shop)

(iii) B-46, Madhuban, Delhi

(iv) 200 sq. yards Plot at Dilshad Garden, Delhi

(v) 112 Karishma Apartment, 27, 1.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi."

6. According to the defendants, perusal of contents of the plaint along with the documents appended thereto, show that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action to institute the present suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The averments made in the plaint are concocted, imaginary and completely based on the whims and fancies of the plaintiffs.

7. According to learned counsel for the defendants, perusal of the plaint reveals that the pleas that have been raised in the plaint completely lack any substance. It is contended that the plaintiffs have falsely and wrongfully claimed that late Sh. Gurdial Singh died intestate or that he left behind legal heirs as detailed in Para 3 of the plaint. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have falsely and wrongly claimed that the business of Imperial Tailoring House was a proprietorship firm of late Sh. Gurdial Singh. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have wrongly sought to suggest that from the earning of alleged proprietorship firm i.e. Imperial Tailoring House, late Sh. Gurdial Singh purchased various properties, as detailed hereinabove. Thus, the plaintiffs are seeking partition of the properties allegedly left behind by late Sh. Gurdial Singh, without any basis or right whatsoever. There is no basis or right in the plaintiffs to seek a declaration that the registered Will dated 25.09.1978 executed by late Sh. Gurdial Singh, is null and void.

8. The defendants have referred to order dated 23.03.2018 passed by this Court in the present proceedings in order to contend that partition of the properties in question would be barred by law, by virtue of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Benami Act'). It is contended that in the said order dated 23.03.2018, this Court had categorically held that the present suit for partition was not maintainable, being barred by the Benami Act. It was only by virtue of the said order dated 23.03.2018 that this Court had granted an opportunity to the plaintiffs to amend their suit in order to give particulars/details of the title deeds by which Sardar Gurdial Singh could be said to be the owner of the properties as mentioned from Serial No. (ii) to (v) as aforesaid.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that even after the amendmen