Short Note : 1. The case of the plaintiffs was that they and Shanti Bai were co-owners of the suit house. Sometime in the month of July 1965 during their absence when they had gone out of station the defendant (respondent) illegally occupied one room of the suit house and started living therein. Since he refused to vacate, they filed the present suit against him as trespasser and claimed the relief of possession and also mesne profits. 2. This part of the criticism against the judgment is undoubtedly correct that both the receipts were inadmissible in evidence as they were only money-order coupons sent in the name of Shanti Bai without any further proof that these coupons relate to the money-orders sent at the address of Shanti Bai, co-owner of the house, regarding the rent of the part portion of the house which is in dispute. On perusal of these two documents, the signatures at the back appended in Hindi are of Shanti Bai and no efforts were made on the part of the defendant to prove that these were the signatures of Shanti Bai. Even the learned counsel appearing for the defendant did not dispute this part of the contention of the other side. I accordingly hold that the lower appellate Court was not right in holding both these documents as admissible in evidence as proof of payment of rent on the part of the defendant. 3. In the circumstances I see no justification to interfere with the finding of fact that the plaintiffs miserably failed in the present case to prove that the defendant was a trespasser. The plaintiffs can only succeed in the case on their own allegations and not on the weakness of the defence. I, therefore, hold that the suit of the plaintiffs was rightly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.