C.R.No.6429 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6429 of 2008 Date of Decision : 15.10.2009 Smt. Veena Devi ...Petitioner Versus Isham Singh ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 18.8.2008, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. Plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land in dispute as a Karta of Joint Hindu Family. The defendant is none else, but his widowed daughter-in-law. The defendant has raised a plea that, in fact, her husband was the real owner and, therefore, in terms of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the present suit to claim declaration as sought in the present suit, is not maintainable. The learned trial Court has dismissed the said application, inter alia, on the ground that it is the case of the plaintiff that the property in dispute was purchased out of funds of a Joint Hindu Family, though in the name of the husband of the defendant. In this view of the matter, it C.R.No.6429 of 2008 2 may fall within the scope of Section 4(iii)(a) of the Act. In view of the said fact, it will be a disputed question of fact and law, whether such suit is maintainable. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint could not have been entertained. Thus, there is no patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 15.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE