JUDGMENT This revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of defendants in a suit for declaration and is directed against order No. 24 dated December 20, 1990 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, First Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 14 of 1990 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. 2. The opposite party brought the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 14 of 1990 for declaration that her father Dr. Sudhanshu Kumar Roy, since deceased, was the real and actual owner of the suit property which he acquired in the benam of his wife the defendant No. 3 and for further declaration that the opposite party has 1/4th share in the suit property after the death of her father. 3. After entering appearance in the suit, the present petitioners, who are two brothers and the mother of the opposite party filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the said plaint was liable to be rejected in view of the face that the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by Section 4 (1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 ("Act"). 4. By the order impugned, the learned trial Judge had rejected such application. 5. Being dissatisfied, the defendants have come up in revision. 6. After hearing Mr. Saha in support of the application and Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the opposite party, I find that the leaned trial Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the application for rejection of plaint. 7. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that at the time of disposal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Court is required to accept the statement made in the plaint to be true and accepting all the statements to be true, if it appears that the suit is barred by any law for the time being in force, the Court can reject the plaint. 8. 8. As indicated earlier, in the plaint, the only allegation of the opposite party was that her father was the real owner and he purchased the property in the benam of her mother and as such after the death of father, she and the present petitioners have become owners each having 1/4th share. 9. In view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, in my opinion, no relief can be granted in favour of the opposite party on the basis of the aver meats made in the plaint and is such the plaint is liable to be rejected. 10. Mr. Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, has contended that as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act, if a person purchases a property in the name of his wife, the presumption is that the same was for the benefit of wife but such presumption rebuttable and as such the learned trial Judge rightly decided not to reject the plaint without giving opportunity, to the plaintiff to adduce evidence for establishing that fact. 11. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Roy. Even if the opposite party is permitted to give evidence to rebut the said, presumption and consequently she succeeds, the property will be held to be a benami property which is prohibited by law and as such in view of Section 4(1) of the Act, no declaration that the father of the opposite party was the real owner can be granted. 12. The learned trial Judge assigned another reason for rejection of such application. According to the learned trial Judge, if a person claiming to be real owner files a suit for declaration of his title, said suit will be barred, but a suit filed by third party is not barred. 13. The said finding is equally devoid of any substance. In the instant case, the opposite party as representative of the alleged owner has filed this suit for declaration and as such it should be presumed that the real owner had filed the aforesaid suit claiming for a declaration. Therefore, the opposite party cannot avoid the rigour of Section 4(1) of the Act. 14. In the instant case, the opposite party as representative of the alleged owner has filed this suit for declaration and as such it should be presumed that the real owner had filed the aforesaid suit claiming for a declaration. Therefore, the opposite party cannot avoid the rigour of Section 4(1) of the Act. 14. It goes without saying that to the plaint no averment claiming exceptions mentioned in Section 4(3) of the aforesaid Act has been made and as such no question of giving no, opportunity to the opposite part, to lead evidence for the purpose of proving exception under the aforesaid Section arises. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside, the plaint is rejected to view of the fact that the suit is barred under Section 4(1) of the Act. The revisional applications thus allowed. In the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs.