IMPORTANT POINTS
• A plaint can be rejected only on the basis of what is contained in the entire plaint, read as a whole, and not anything else, including the written statement is no more res integra
• The suit cannot be said to be without a cause of action merely by relying on Section 116 of the Evidence Act.
• The principles in Section 116 of the Evidence Act cannot be extended to a challenge against the rights devolved on the 1st respondent (assignee landlord) because the tenants are only estopped from disputing the title of their landlord at the time of induction. It is therefore contended that such a plea advanced on the side of the respondents cannot be legally countenanced.

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. Paradesi Synagogue is the oldest active Synagogue located at Jew Town, Cochin (at present known as Kochi). It was built in 1568 for catering the religious needs of Cochin Jewish Community in the erstwhile kingdom of Cochin. Admittedly, this Synagogue is a religious trust. The appellants herein, the plaintiffs before trial court, would contend that the plaint schedule land and building had been dedicated to the Synagogue and it therefore forms part of a religious charitable trust of a public nature. They would contend that an assignment deed obtained by the 1st respondent from respondents 2 and 3 (who are the defendants in the suit) in respect of the plaint schedule property is void and it has to be set aside. Court below, by the impugned order passed on an interlocutory application, upheld the plea of the respondents that the appellants have no cause of action against them for instituting the suit and therefore the plaint was rejected by invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the Code). That order is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Fundamental facts, relevant for a proper decision, are the following: Plaint schedule land and buildings thereon originally belonged to one Sassoon Hallegua @ Sassoon Mudaliyar who had obtained the same in a partition of the year 1124 M.E. While so, Sassoon Hallegua executed a registered Will bearing No. 27 of 1966 of SRO, Kochi on 05.09.1966. He declared in the Will that the plaint schedule property, along with certain other items, be vested upon "Cochin Synagogue" also known as "Kochi White Jew Synagogue" after his death. It is also specifically set out in the Will that the properties described therein, set apart to the Cochin Synagogue, would have to be administered by a trust to be formed by the persons named in the Will and the income generated therefrom should be utilized for the specific purposes stated therein. Although a life interest was provided to his wife, it is specifically stated that after formation of the trust, the property would have to be taken over by the said trust from his wife. Sassoon Hallegua died on 07.09.1971 and thereupon his Will became operative. Later, his wife also died on 15.06.2015. According to the appellants, in terms of the Will executed by Sassoon Hallegua, the plaint schedule property became vested in the Cochin Synagogue and thereafter a trust was created on 30.03.2011 as per document No. 96 of 2011 of SRO, Kochi, as decided by the testator, with a name "Cochin Synagogue Trust" for the effective management and administration of the properties belonging to the Synagogue, including the plaint schedule property. Husband of the 3rd defendant, Joseph Hallegua was made the managing trustee by virtue of the position as kaikkaran/karanavan of the Cochin Synagogue. Accordingly, the plaint schedule property has become a property of the Cochin Synagogue by virtue of the provisions in the Will as well as in the deed of trust.

3. The appellants are tenants of various shop-rooms in the building situated in the plaint schedule property. According to the appellants, apart from the tenancy right that they hold in respect of the property, they are also beneficiaries of the trust, going by the clear expressions in the trust deed. The deed of trust specifically spells out that creation of the trust is for preservation and maintenance of movable and immovable assets of the Cochin Synagogue, which includes the plaint schedule property as well. Although it is provided in the trust deed that the principal beneficiaries of the trust would be the jewish families living in Synagogue lane, Mattanchery, it is made clear that their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. who live overseas in Israel, United States, Canada and other countries would also be defacto beneficiaries. It is further stated that benefits of the said trust would be made available to jewish visitors to India too. It has been specifically