(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC challenging the order passed by learned District Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 4A/2013 dtd. 26/2/2015, whereby the plaint was rejected applying provisions under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.
(2.) Facts of the present case are that the original plaintiff namely Umashankar Purohit filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to Survey numbers 141, 145 and 200 total ad-measuring 15.05 acres situated at Village Limora, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.). The original plaintiff further sought declaration to the effect that sale-deed executed by respondent no. 1 in favor of the respondent no. 2 to 4 dtd. 31/10/2007 be declared null and void inter alia on the ground that late Kasturichand Purohit, who was father of original plaintiff had purchased the suit property from his own income through registered sale-deed dtd. 27/2/1974 in the name of minor Chandrashekhar Purohit (defendant No. 1) on account of love and affection. In that sale-deed, name of defendant No. 1 was entered as purchaser and name of Kasturchand Purohit as guardian. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of original plaintiff Umashankar Purohit.
(3.) Defendants No. 2 to 4 filed written statement and denied plaint averments. A specific plea was taken by defendants No. 2 to 4 with regard to benami transaction and it was also pleaded that the suit is hit by the provisions of Sec. 4(1) of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [hereinafter to be referred as "The Act, 1988"]. Learned Trial Court framed preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of civil suit in light of Sec. 4(1) of The Act, 1988. Learned trial Court considered the pleadings made in the plaint and came to the conclusion that suit property was not a coparcenary property and suit is hit by the provisions of Sec. 4 (1) of The Act, 1988 and consequently, rejected the plaint.