- (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 28. 3. 1992, passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, rejecting the petitioner's application under 0. 7 R. 11, C. P. C. for rejecting the plaint.
(2.) THE suit was filed by Chet Ram against his son Deepchand, alleging that during the minority of Deepchand, the property in question was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of Deepchand from his own income. THE relief claimed was for a declaration to the effect that the property is belonging to plaintiff Chet Ram or, in the alternative, to the Joint Hindu Family, of which Chet Ram is 'karta'. Issues have also been framed to that effect whether the property in question is a Joint Hindu Family property?, and , whether the other co-parceners are necessary party to the suit? During the pendency of the suit, Chet Ram died and one Gopi Ram claimed, to be impleaded as his legal representative and sole heir, under the alleged will executed by Chet Ram, to which Deepchand objected. However, for the purpose of proceedings, aforesaid Gopi Ram was accepted to be legal representative of deceased Chet Ram and he was impleaded in place of late Chet Ram. The defendant moved an application, that as per the plaint allegations itself, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff in view of the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The trial court rejected the application, on the ground that the question whether the property belongs to Joint Hindu Family and if the property is held to be a coparcenary property, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief claimed in the alternative, is not defeated by the provisions of aforesaid Act. The defendant-petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order. In view of the provisions of Sec. 4 (3) of the Act, which excludes the property held in the name of a co-parcener of a Hindu Undivided Family from the purview of the provisions of the Act, the order of the trial court cannot be held to be erroneous or suffering from any error of jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. .;