JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Plaintiff-Ajit Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. 2. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the suit property shown in red colour was owned by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was a carpenter by profession and was in possession of the suit property as owner. The defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by opening windows, ventilators, doors and parnalas. 3. Defendant No.1 did not oppose the claim of the plaintiff and consequently the suit qua defendant No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Defendant No.2, on the other hand, averred that he was owner in possession of the suit property. The site plain, produced by the plaintiff, was not correct. Some part of the property had been purchased by defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 29.5.1972 executed by Swarna while some part of the suit property was his ancestral property. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct ? OPD. 5. Whether the site plan is incorrect ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties ? OPD. 7. Relief.” 6. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2009 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. 8. Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction claiming that he was owner in possession of the plot in dispute. It is settled proposition of law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and has to plead and prove his case. Plaintiff cannot draw any benefit from the weakness in evidence led by the defendant. 8. Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction claiming that he was owner in possession of the plot in dispute. It is settled proposition of law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and has to plead and prove his case. Plaintiff cannot draw any benefit from the weakness in evidence led by the defendant. In the present case, the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was owner of the suit property. Plaintiff had deposed that he had no document supporting his title qua the suit property. The plot in dispute is, admittedly, situated opposite the house of the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff also wants to grab the plot which is lying vacant in front of his house. Mere use of the vacant plot would not make the plaintiff owner in possession of the plot. The Courts below had, thus, rightly dismissed the suit. 9. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. 10. Dismissed. -----------0.K.B.0------------