Short Note : The plaintiffs based their claim for possession on the basis that they derived their title in respect of the whole house from their father, who according to them, was the exclusive owner of the same. According to them they had been living in the upper portion of the said house while the ground-floor wag allowed being occupied by different persons from time to time by them. As regards the last occupant, defendant No. 1 he was their licensee. Since he did not vacate the ground-floor of the house, the plaintiffs had to file the present suit for his eviction and their possession. Held : It is well settled rule that the plaintiff can only succeed on the basis of his own pleadings and the proof thereof and he cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defendant's case. In the present case the plaintiffs claimed relief of possession on the basis that defendant No.1 was their licensee and as such if they failed to prove that fact the present suit ought to have been dismissed. The trial Court having considered this aspect came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant No.1, was their licensee. The lower appellate court in its judgment has affirmed that finding and clearly mentioned that the witnesses of defendant No.1 are more reliable in comparison to that of the plaintiffs and thereby discarded the evidence or the plaintiffs. That being so, there is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs could not establish by cogent evidence that the occupation of the suit house by defendant No.1 was in the capacity of their licensee. The finding in that regard would be a finding of fact. This finding was also not challenged by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. In that view, the suit of the plaintiffs was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal allowed.