JUDGMENT :

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 filed under Order 7, 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 6.7.2005 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. 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 1.6.1965, when Ryotwari 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 6.7-2005, 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 11.6.2008 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 7, 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. Meenakshisundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that as per the Order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, dated 1.6.1965, 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 holder 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