ORDER : N. Anand Venkatesh, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Court below dismissing an application fried under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint. 2. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 8 before the Court below. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants claiming for the relief of declaration of title, mandatory injunction and for delivery of possession. The sum and substance of the averments made in the suit is to the effect that the "A" schedule property was originally an inam land and it was dedicated to the plaintiffs as their Darmadayam for the support of water pandal. The grant was made under title Deed No. 728 and the entry was also made in the inam fair register. It was further averred that the property had been illegally dealt with and was sold to one Ramesh Kumar and Senthil Kumar and they in turn had sold it to the petitioners by sale deed dated 06.07.2005 and the property that has been sold is shown as "B" schedule property. Subsequently, the petitioners had put up a construction in the "B" schedule property and they are running their business. This alienation, according to the plaintiff is without any authority and it goes against the very grant that was issued in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Subsequently, the petitioners had put up a construction in the "B" schedule property and they are running their business. This alienation, according to the plaintiff is without any authority and it goes against the very grant that was issued in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The cause of action for the suit as pleaded in the plaint is extracted as follows:- "Cause of action for the suit arose on when the suit A schedule property had been granted to the plaintiff's institution for running water pandal and on 01.06.1965 when Ryotwati Patta under Inam Abolition Act 30/1963 had been granted to the plaintiff's institution in respect of the suit A schedule property and on 06.07.2005 when the defendants 1 to 8 are alleged to have purchased the suit B schedule property from Senthilkumar and Rameshkumar and on every subsequent dates when the defendants 1 to 8 have put up constructions in the suit B schedule property and on every subsequent dates when the defendants 1 to 8 obtained patta and patta passbook in their favour from the Revenue Departments and on 11.06.2008 when the 1st defendant has presented letter to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tiruchirappalli offering to purchase the suit B schedule property and on and from the date when the 9th defendant encroached over the suit C Schedule property and at Punjai Kadambankurichi Village, Karur Taluk where the suit property is situate within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." 4. A written statement was filed by the defendants and the issues were framed and the case was at the stage of trial. At that stage, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., seeking for rejection of plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for maintaining the present suit. The Court below has dismissed the petition on the ground that there are several disputed facts that are required to be decided in the suit and therefore, there is no scope for rejection of the plaint in the present case. 5. Mr. S. Meenakshmi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, dated 01.06.1965, through which the patta was granted under Inam Abolition Act 30/1963, the nature of grant is Darmadayam for the support of the water pandal. 5. Mr. S. Meenakshmi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, dated 01.06.1965, through which the patta was granted under Inam Abolition Act 30/1963, the nature of grant is Darmadayam for the support of the water pandal. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the grant is given in favour of the bolder burdened with service and it was not absolutely conveyed in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the cause of action in the present case can only arise if the plaintiff alleges that the defendants are not continuing with the Darmadayam. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in order to maintain a suit, there must be some cause of action. He submitted; that there must be some act done by the; defendants which infringes the right of the plaintiff or there is breach of obligation on the part of the defendants and without the same no cause of action will arise. 7. The learned Senior Counsel in order to substantiate his submission relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Shanoan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar Vs. Krishna Nandan Singh and another reported in 2019 SAR (Civil) 1012, (b) A.B.C. Laminar Pvt. Ltd., and another Vs., A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported in 1989-1-L.W. 449 : AIR 1989 SC 1239 , (c) Srinivasa Ayyar Vs. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments Madras and others reported in A.I.R. 1934 Madras 258(1), (d) P.S. Chandrasekara Raj Vs. Sankarayana Swamy Devasthanam and others reported in 2012(1) MWN (Civil) 99 and (e) Ramti Devi (Smt.) Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 198 . 8. Per contra, Mr. P. Thiyagarajan representing the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the grant in this case was; admittedly in favour of the plaintiff Dharmasathiram and it is very clear from the averments made in the pliant as well as the documents that have been filed along with the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed that was executed in favour of the defendants is illegal and no one had a right to deal with the property. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff Dharmasathiram is now administrated by the Executive Officer appointed by the HR & CE Department. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed that was executed in favour of the defendants is illegal and no one had a right to deal with the property. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff Dharmasathiram is now administrated by the Executive Officer appointed by the HR & CE Department. 9. The learned counsel by pointing to the cause of action in the plaint, submitted that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed on 06.07.2005, the defendants have obtained the patta from the Revenue Department and on 11.06.2008, they presented a letter to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, offering to purchase the "B" schedule property. That apart, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the plaintiff had also filed a suit in O.S. No. 714 of 2007, seeking for the relief permanent injunction against the defendants and in that suit, the defendants had raised a plea to the effect that they are the absolute owners of "B" schedule property and that they have put up a construction. All these instances gave a cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration of title and for other reliefs. The learned counsel submitted that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the fair and final order passed by the Court below. More particularly since already two witnesses have been examined on the side of the plaintiff and time limit can be fixed for completion of the proceedings. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submission relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and another reported in 2017-1-L.W. 843 : 2016 (14) SCC 275 . 10. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 11. Before dealing with the issues that have been raised by either side, this Court has to keep in mind the scope of, a petition filed for rejection of plaint. While considering a petition filed for. rejection of plaint, this Court has to see only the averments made in the plaint as it is, without adding or subtracting anything. Rejection of plaint is a power which can be exercised at any stage of the suit. 12. While considering a petition filed for. rejection of plaint, this Court has to see only the averments made in the plaint as it is, without adding or subtracting anything. Rejection of plaint is a power which can be exercised at any stage of the suit. 12. In the present case, the suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the entire "A" schedule property (out of which a portion has been purchased by the defendants and described as "B" schedule property) was originally an inam land and it was dedicated to the plaintiff institution as Darmadayam for the support of water pandal. The grant that was made in favour of the plaintiff institution is supported by Document Nos. 3, 4 and 5, that has been filed along with the plaint. A careful reading of those documents shows that the nature of grant is a Darmadayam for the support of water pandal and all the documents; reveal the fact that the holder of the grant is the plaintiff institution. 13. A prima facie reading of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint shows that it is a personal grant burdened with service which cannot be resumed so long as the grantee is ready and willing to render service.. 14. It was the specific contention that was raised by the learned Senior Counsel to the effect that the transfer of the property in favour of the defendants by itself cannot be construed to be a cause of action to maintain the present suit, unless and otherwise it is specifically averred that the defendants are not continuing with the Darmadayam. In the absence of such averment in the plaint, no cause of action will arise since the defendants have not in any way infringed the burden cast upon the property by not continuing the Darmadayam. 15. For the purpose of understanding the expression "cause of action", the learned Senior Counsel relied on certain judgments and the same is extracted hereunder:- (a). The Honourable Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminar Pvt. Ltd., and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported in 1989-1-L.W. 449 : AIR 1989 SC 1239 , held as follows:- "A cause of action means every fact, which, if traverse d, it would be. necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. The Honourable Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminar Pvt. Ltd., and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported in 1989-1-L.W. 449 : AIR 1989 SC 1239 , held as follows:- "A cause of action means every fact, which, if traverse d, it would be. necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a fight to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action Can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the fight sued on but included all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree.. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a fight to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff." (b) The Honourable Supreme Court in Colonel Sharwan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar Vs. Krishna Nandan Singh and another reported in 2019 SAR (Civil) 1012 held as follows:- "This Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Society Represented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairman/Managing Trustee has referred to the earlier judgment of this Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem to explain that the cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to seek a decree and relief against the defendant. Cause of action requires infringement of the right or breach of an obligation and comprises of all material facts on which the right and claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation. Cause of action requires infringement of the right or breach of an obligation and comprises of all material facts on which the right and claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation. In T. Arivandanam v. T.V. Satyapai and Another this Court has held that if the plaint is manifestly vexatious; meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, 'it would be right and proper to exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code, for short). A mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action." 16. The above judgments make it clear that a cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to seek a decree and relief against the defendants. There must be some act done by the defendants which infringes upon a right or violates a right or there is breach of obligation. 17. It will be relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Liverppol & London S.P.& I Association Ltd., Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 512 . The relevant portions of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- "REJECTION OF PLAINT: 139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in its entirety, a decree would be passed. CAUSE OF ACTION: 140. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. For the aforementioned purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence. 146. For the aforementioned purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence. 146. It may be true that Order 7 Rule 11(a) although authorises the court to reject a plaint on failure on the part of the plaintiff to disclose a cause of action but the same would not mean that the averments made therein or a document upon which reliance has been placed although discloses a cause of action, the plaint would be rejected on the ground that such averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein for the purpose of obtaining reliefs claimed in the suit. The approach adopted by the High Court, in this behalf, in our opinion, is not correct. 147. In D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors. [ (1999) 3 SCC 267 ], this Court held: "It is well settled that in all cases of preliminary objection, the test is to see whether any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the appellant if the averments made in the petition are proved to be true. For the purpose of considering a preliminary objection, the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the court has to find out whether those averments disclose a cause of action or a triable issue as such. The court cannot probe into the facts on the basis of the controversy raised in the counter." 148. Furthermore a fact which is within the special knowledge of the defendant need not be pleaded in the plaint. In Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary [JT 2003 (Supp. 1) SC 557], it is stated: "...These are the material facts relating to the plea raised by the appellant that the respondent is not a Scheduled caste. We don't think if the respondent means to say that the petitioner should have stated in the petition that the respondent is not born of Deo Kumari Devi said to be married to Bhagwan Singh in village Adai. If at all these facts would be in the special knowledge of respondent, Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi hence not required to be pleaded in the election petition. It is not possible as well. If at all these facts would be in the special knowledge of respondent, Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi hence not required to be pleaded in the election petition. It is not possible as well. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Balwan Singh vs. Lakshmi Nram and Ors., ( AIR 1960 SC 770 ). This case also relates to election matter and it was held that facts which are in the special knowledge of the other party could not be pleaded by the election petitioner. It was found that particulars of the arrangement of hiring or procuring a vehicle would never be in the knowledge of the petitioner, such facts need not and cannot be pleaded in the petition." 149. In D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors. [1999] 3 SCC 267, it has been held that the Court cannot dissect the pleading into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. 150. In the aforementioned backdrop, the question as to whether the Club had been able to show that the Respondent No. 1 is a sister ship of "Sea Glory" and "Sea Ranger" admittedly belonging to the first respondent is a matter which is required to be gone into in the suit. 151. In ascertaining whether the plaint shows a cause of action, the court is not required to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. By the statute the jurisdiction of the court is restricted to ascertaining whether on the allegations a cause of action is shown. In Vijay Pratap Singh Vs. Dukh Haran Nath Singh [ AIR 1962 SC 941 ] this Court held: "By the express terms of r.5 clause (d), the court is concerned the ascertain whether the allegations made in the petition show a cause of action. The court has not to see whether the claim made by the petitioner is likely to succeed: it has merely to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to the relief he claims. If accepting those allegations as true no case is made out for granting relief no cause of action would be shown and the petition must be rejected. If accepting those allegations as true no case is made out for granting relief no cause of action would be shown and the petition must be rejected. But in ascertaining whether the petition shows a cause of action the court does not enter upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. It cannot take into consideration the defences which the defendant may raise upon the merits; nor is the court competent to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. If the allegations in the petition, prima facie, show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact, or whether the petitioner will succeed in the claims made by him." 152. So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The purported failure of the pleadings to disclose a cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars." 18. It is clear from the above judgment that it is enough if the plaint averments and the documents relied upon discloses some cause of action and it is not necessary that such averments and documents are sufficient enough to prove the facts stated therein, for the purpose of obtaining the relief claimed in the suit. So long as the claim, discloses some cause of action or raise some questions fit to be decided by a judge, that is enough to proceed further with the suit and a plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of action. 19. In the present case, the plaintiff has specifically averred that the property has been illegally alienated in favour of the defendants and the defendants have put up a construction and they are running their business in the property. For this purpose, the plaintiff has made averment regarding the suit filed in O.S. No. 714 of 2007 and the stand taken by the defendants in the said suit. The defendants have taken a further stand in the suit claiming themselves to be absolute owners. 20. For this purpose, the plaintiff has made averment regarding the suit filed in O.S. No. 714 of 2007 and the stand taken by the defendants in the said suit. The defendants have taken a further stand in the suit claiming themselves to be absolute owners. 20. These averments by itself shows that the defendants are not using the property, which has been burdened with Darmadayam for supporting water pandal and the defendants are also denying the title of the plaintiff institution, which has been declared to be the holder of grant. This is clear from the documents 3 to 5 filed along with the plaint. 21. The issue as to whether an Executive Officer can represent the institution and whether the HR & CE Department can appoint an Executive Officer as if the institution is a religious institution, are all matters that are to be agitated in the main suit. In the considered view of this Court, there is a triable issue in this suit since the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff institution and the nature of property itself has been changed since the defendants have put up a construction and are running their business in the "B" schedule property which clearly shows that the burden that has been attached to the property has been violated, as per the pleadings in the plaint. 22. In the considered view of this Court, a reading of plaint along with the documents filed, clearly make out a cause of action in this case and this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. All the grounds taken by the petitioners can be raised before the Court below in the course of proceedings and the same will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. 23. In the result, the civil revision case is dismissed and the Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in O.S. No. 588 of 2009, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.