The main legal point established is that the test for determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is based on the averments made in the plaint itself, and the requirement of material facts to constitute the cause of action.

( 1 ) THIS order shall decide the following preliminary issue:-"4. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?"

( 2 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the controversy between the parties and for the disposal of the issues are given hereinafter. The plaintiff is the mother of defendant No. 2. Plaintiff/mother claims to be the owner of basement in the building constructed on plot No. C-6/7, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has contended that she is the owner of plot bearing No. C- 6/7, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi which was purchased by her by virtue of conveyance deed dated 3rd February, 2000 executed by the President of India in her favor. It was asserted by her that prior to 3rd February, 2000, she was the lessee in respect of the said plot by virtue of a lease deed dated 18th April, 1968 executed in her favor.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff categorically contended that she has been in possession of the basement since the completion of the building in 2000 and she had been occupying the basement and using the same. It was stated that she stored her furniture including chairs and tables and had even allowed the tenant of the first floor, M/s. Louis Burger Group Inc. to store their material in the basement which was always under lock and key of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF pleaded that she has been residing at her farm at Gadaipur, mehrauli, New Delhi and visits the property from time to time and on 28th June, 2004 when she came to her property, she was shocked to find a sign board on the boundary wall stating, ?head Office of Dragnet Detectives (P) Ltd. and after going inside, she found another sign board outside the basement.

( 6 ) THE plea of the plaintiff in the plaint is that on 28th June, 2004, her son, defendant No. 2. , appeared on the scene when she was shocked to find the sign board outside her home and basement and he told her that he has occupied the basement and he has permitted defendant No. 1 in the property. The plaintiff asserted that defendant No. 2 does not have any right in the property and she told him that he had no right to occupy the said property without the permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff categorically pleaded that she has not permitted either defendants to use, occupy or possess the said property. Despite categorically communicating to the defendant No. 2 that he does not have right in the property, as plaintiff has not permitted either defendants to use, occupy or possess the said property. Despite demands from the plaintiff to restore the possession of the basement, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have refused to restore the possession of the basement which was taken by the defendants by breaking open the locks.

( 7 ) THE relevant paragraph of the plaint are as under:-"7. At or about the same time, the Plaintiff s son (Defendant No. 2) appeared on the scene and told the plaintiff that she must not go into the basement, and that he has occupied it an he has permitted the Defendant No. 1 in the property. The plaintiff told the Defendant No. 2 that he had no right to occupy the said property without permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not permitted either of the defendants to use, occupy or possess the said property. The defendant No. 1 however refused to see reason. The defendant No. 2 also disclosed to the plaintiff that he had broken the locks of the plaintiff in the said property. "

( 8 ) THE plaintiff immediately reported the matter to the police station at hauz Khas by complaint in writing of even date. However, no action has been taken on the said complaint and nothing has been informed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff verily believes that the defendants have wrongly influenced the police authorities not to take any action on the plaintiff s said complaint. ? 8. In the circumstances, plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of possession of the basement floor of the constructed building bearing plot No. C- 6/7,