ORDER

1. Present Civil Revision under section 115 of CPC arising out of the order dated 26.2.2019 passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 840-A/2017 whereby, application under Order 7 rule 11 r/w 151 of CPC has been rejected.

2. The facts in short giving rise to the present revision are that the respondents No. 1 to 5/plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent No. 6/defendant No.2.

3. As per plaint pleadings the property was purchased benami vide registered sale deed by Shri Basant Lal Jain as karta of the joint Hindu Family in the name of Suresh Chand Jain on 18.9.1980. The plot was purchased and got constructed by Shri Basant Lal Jain from the joint income of the family and since then, the plaintiffs and the defendants are residing in the property together. Basant Lal Jain executed a Will on 10.12.1983, wherein the property is shown as joint family property. After death of Basant Lal, Suresh Kumar became karta of joint family and continued the business of ''Bajrang Trading Company''. Thereafter Suresh Kumar died On 30.10.2017 and after his death, Vinod kumar looked after the business. It was further pleaded that without partition, the defendants No. 1 and 2 are trying to sell the disputed property. Thus the present suit is filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. During the pendency of suit petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC before learned trial Court and prayed for dismissal of suit on the ground that the suit is incompletely filed and is barred by Law in view of section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and further in view of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1908 and section 3(b), 9, 10 and 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Act, 1973 and Limitation Act.

5. Reply to the application was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs denying contentions made in the application and prayed for dismissal of the same on the ground that it is the matter of evidence and it can be decided on the basis of evidence. The question whether the property is of Hindu Undivided Family or not, can only be decided after the evidence.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court considering the submissions of the rival parties, dismissed the application filed by the defendant No. 1/petitioner by the impugned order.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC without considering the mandatory provisions and legal position settled by apex Court. It is further argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents is incomplete and is without map. In the plaint the respondents/plaintiffs have admitted that the property in question has been purchased benami vide registered sale deed in the name of Suresh Chand Jain on 18.9.1980 from Chetak Grah Nirman Samiti. The sale deed filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs along with the plaint is in the name of Suresh Chand Jain, the husband of the petitioner/defendant No. 1. Hence the plaintiffs/respondents are claiming title over the property taking the plea of benami on the basis of Will, which is barred by provision contained in section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgments, in the cases of Mohd. Shakeel v. Smt. Husna Bano and Others, 2017(1) M.P.L.C. 63 (M.P), Jagdish Prasad Agrawal and another v. Rajkumar and another, 2006(5) M.P.H.T. 379, Mukesh and Anr. v. Shantilal & Ors., ILR.[2011] M.P. 2893 and Anand Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., I.L.R. [2012] M.P. 2554 to buttress his arguments and prays to dismiss the suit in the light of section 4(2)(a) of the Act, as barred by law.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. For deciding this petition, the provisions of Order VII rule 11 of C.P.C. are relevant which r