Short Note : 1. This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for obtaining possession of a chabutra and certain consequential reliefs. The plaintiff’s case is that the said chahutra belongs to him and on 21-1-1967 it was forcibly occupied by the defendants who also then made some constructions thereon. On these allegations the suit was filed on 24-10-1967. The defendants denied plaintiff's claim of ownership of the chabutra and consequently his right to get any of the reliefs. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. That decree has been substantially affirmed by the first appellate Court maintaining the decree for possession of chabutra and declining to grant only some minor reliefs. This has led to the present appeal by the defendants. 2. The main question in the suit is whether the plaintiff has proved his ownership of the chabutra. Unless that question is answered in plaintiff's favour, no further question arises. 3. Certain salient features may be stated at the outset. This chabutra is on one side of a road in village Kotar, tahsil Raghurajnagar, district Satna, within the abadi area. On two sides of this chabutra is the house of the defendants, on the third side is the house of one Sudama while on the fourth side is the said road. On the other side of the road is plaintiff's house. In short, there being a wide public road between the chabutra and the plaintiff's house, ordinarily there is no nexus to connect this chabutra with the plaintiff unless the chabutra is owned by the plaintiff as a separate property while on two sides of the chabutra exists the house of the defendants. There is no evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove his ownership of the land on which the chabutra exists. Even according to the plaintiff there exists a construction made by the defendants on that chabutra in the beginning of January 1967. There is nothing to indicate any reason why the plaintiff should have made such a chabutra with no property of his own adjoining the same for the beneficial use of which the chabutra may have been made. In short, there is no explanation for such a chabutra alone being made by the plaintiff which could obviously by itself be of no use to anyone. All these facts are patent on the record and are admitted before me. In short, there is no explanation for such a chabutra alone being made by the plaintiff which could obviously by itself be of no use to anyone. All these facts are patent on the record and are admitted before me. Held: The burden was admittedly on the plaintiff to prove his ownership of the chabutra and unless that is done, the suit has to fail. The first appellate Court has relied on the documents Ex. P-1, P-4 and P-5, particularly the first two, to hold that the plaintiff's title to the chabutra is proved. Ex.P-1 is a document written in plaintiff's bahi and found to have been executed by the defendants' grand-father Ramdulare. It only says that Ramdulare was raising a wall made over a chabutra belonging to the plaintiff's predecessors-in title and notwithstanding the construction being made by Ramdulare, he admitted ownership of the wall continuing in plaintiff's predecessors. There is nothing' in the document to identify the chabutra or the wall thereon referred to therein. The only witnesses examined to prove this document at best only prove the signatures thereon and consequently execution of the documents and nothing more. No evidence has been pointed out by Shri Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, which may connect this document with the chabutra for which the suit has been filed. Without the identity of the chabutra mentioned in Ex. P-1 being established so as to connect the same with the chabutra in dispute in this suit, this document can admittedly be of no use to the plaintiff to prove his title. Similar is the position of Ex. P-4, a map. The identity of a chabutra mentioned therein has not been established so as to connect the same with the chabutra of this suit without which this document also does not assist the plaintiff. The result is that Ex. P-1 and P-4 do not advance the plaintiff's case and they were wrongly relied on as evidence proving plaintiff's title to the chabutra in dispute. Ex. P-5 dated 8-6-1966 is a rent-note alleged to have been executed by P.W.6 Brindaban in plaintiff's favour by which the chabutra is alleged to have been rented out to this witness. In the first place, this document, even if genuine, is of a date so near the admitted date of dispute that by itself it cannot have considerable weight. Ex. P-5 dated 8-6-1966 is a rent-note alleged to have been executed by P.W.6 Brindaban in plaintiff's favour by which the chabutra is alleged to have been rented out to this witness. In the first place, this document, even if genuine, is of a date so near the admitted date of dispute that by itself it cannot have considerable weight. That apart, nothing is shown from the testimony of P.W. 6 Brindaban to even indicate the use made of this chabutra by the witness. The reason why the chabutra should have been let out to this witness of the plaintiff is, therefore, not forthcoming. At any rate, by itself this document alone does not prove the plaintiff's title, particularly in the face of the above facts. Ex. D-1 is the sanction by the Gram Panchayat acting on which the defendants made the construction on the chabutra P.W. 1 Hirasingh and P.W. 2. Ramkishore who are respectively the Panch and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, have been unable to give any satisfactory explanation for the grant of this sanction if the Chabutra belonged to the plaintiff as stated by them in the witness box. In short the first appellate Court erred in treating the plaintiff's title proved on the basis of Ex P.1 and P-4 which, as earlier stated, are not even connected with the chabutra in dispute and consequently do not amount to legal evidence for the purpose. With these documents out of consideration the oral evidence is of no assistance in view of the admitted facts and circumstances detailed earlier. It must, therefore, be held that the plaintiff has been unable to prove that he owns the chabutra in dispute. The necessary consequence is that he is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. Appeal allowed.