R.C. Lahoti, J.--1. Not a dismissal of the suit at the end of a civil trial but the rejection of plaint at the very threshold of the civil jurisdiction of the trial Court, holding the suit to be barred by law of the land, has left the plaintiff with no other choice but to prefer this First Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The contesting defendant pleaded the bar enacted by section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Benami Act', for short) to the maintainability of the suit and the plea has found favour with the trial Court entailing exclusion of trial of plaintiff's case on merits.

2. The facts in brief and only to the extent necessary for the decision in this appeal may be noticed. The parties, except Balkrishan, the defendant No.6, are members of the same family. The following family tree explains their relationship inter se;

Ramgopal Gupta

Gyanchand-defendant Wife- Bhagirathi-defendant Subhash Chandra

No 1. No 1 -plaintiff.

Wife-Sushila –defendant Santosh Kumar-defendant Wife-Vma-defendant

No.2 No.3 No.5.

Smt. Uma, the defendant No. 5, is the wife of the plaintiff-appellant. Smt. Sushila, the defendant No.2, is the wife of Gyanchand, the defendant No. 1. Smt. Bhagirathi, the defendant No.4, is the wife of Santosh Kumar, the defendant No. 3. Gyanchand and Santosh Kumar, the defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 3 are the real elder brothers of the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 - the six-are three real brothers and their respective wives. The three brothers are the sons of Late Ramgopal Gupta and Smt. Sarvati Bai, the father and mother, who have expired respectively in the years 1943 and 1965.

3. According to the plaintiff the family of the parties was a Hindu undivided family possessed of substantial property at Bahadurgarh, near Delhi and at Indore. The suit property bearing land survey No. 1321/2 situated at village Khajrana, Tahsil Indore admeasuring O. 26 acres was purchased through a registered deed of sale dated 16.2.1973 for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- in the name of Smt. Sushila, the defendant No.2, in her capacity as a member of HUF. The price was paid out of joint family funds. The property was invariably treated as HUF property ever since the date of purchase and was enjoyed as such. On 6.10.1982, there was an oral family settlement, reduced into writing at Jabalpur on 11.11.83, under which the suit property came to the share of the plaintiff and he alone became absolute owner thereof. At the instance of the plaintiff, on 14.6.1985, the defendant No. 2 executed a deed of release in favour of defendant No.5, the wife of the plaintiff. Balkrishna, the defendant No.6 has filed civil original suit No. 19-N85 in the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Indore seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of the suit property allegedly executed by the defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No. 1. Differences amongst the members of the family and other litigations having been initiated, the plaintiff has been compelled to file the present suit for a declaration that the plaintiff as the Karta of his branch of family was the owner of the suit land bearing survey No. 1321/2 village Khajrana and a consequent injunction restraining alienation.

4. According to the defendant No.6, the plaintiff wants the suit property standing in the name of defendant No.5 to be adjudged Benami, a claim incapable of being canvassed before and adjudicated upon by a civil Court in view of the provisions contained in the Benami Act. On 9.4.1990, the defendant No.6 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint submitting that the transaction dated 16.2.1973 describing purchase of the suit property in the name of Smt. Sushila the defendant No.2, as a member of HUF amounted to pleading a case of Benami as the plaintiff had intended to suggest that the property though standing