JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside order dated 26.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali whereby petitioner/defendant's application dated 20.08.2015 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Niranjan Kaur (now deceased) had purchased suit property from the funds given to her by her son, who is the husband of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that prior to buying the said property in the name of petitioner-Niranjan Kaur, there was mutual agreement between the parties that the house in question/suit property will be transferred in the name of respondent No.1 and her children. However, as relationship between the parties became strained, petitioner refused to transfer suit property in the name of respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P1) for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. In the said Suit, petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that property in the name of petitioner could not be claimed by the respondents due to prohibition as contained in Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Benami Act"). It is this application, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court by way of impugned order. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased property in her name by finances provided by her son. It is submitted that as such, the Suit was barred by afflux of law as, as per Section 4 of the Benami Act, right to recover benami property is prohibited. It is further submitted that moreover, the respondents/plaintiffs had no locus to file the instant Suit which was solely filed with intent of causing harassment to the petitioner and to usurp property of the petitioner. It is further submitted that at best, son of the petitioner could have laid challenge but the respondents/plaintiffs have no locus to do so.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner.

5. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 that under Section 2 sub-section 9 of the Benami Act, certain exceptions are provided and in the present case, respondents fall under the first exception of karta of Section 2 sub-section 9 of the Benami Act. It is further submitted that in any event, this aspect of the matter will be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court at the time of adjudicating upon the Suit. It is submitted that the question whether the present transaction was benami or not, is a matter of evidence and therefore, application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC will not lie. Learned counsel also places reliance upon judgments in Civil Appeal No.3367 of 2019 titled as " Pawan Kumar v. Babulal Since Deceased through LRs & Others"; RFA No.855 of 2018 titled as " Anis Ur Rehman v. Mohd. Tahir & Others" and RFA No.522 of 2017 titled as " Manoj Arora v. Mamta Arora ".

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Parties are ad idem that the suit property in question was purchased in the name of petitioner from the funds sent to the petitioner by husband of respondent No.1. Section 2 sub-section 9 and Section 4 of the Benami Act are reproduced herein below:-

"2. (9) "benami transa