JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This second appeal arises against the appellate judgment and decree of dismissal dated 09.08.2006 passed by learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in T.A. No.1 of 2006, whereunder the learned District Judge upheld the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 05.12.2005 and 15.12.2005 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udaipur, South Tripura in case No.T.S.1 of 2005. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. I. Chakraborty for the respondent. 3. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the court below misinterpreted and/or misconstrued the documents marked Exbts.4, 1, 2 and Exbt. C while passing the impugned order and whether the findings of the learned court below is tainted with perversity?” 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiffs, as pleaded, is that the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint was allotted in the names of them and their mother, since deceased, Sadhana Bala Das, and that they had been possessing the suit land. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 shifted to Udaipur and plaintiff No.2 also following her marriage shifted to Udaipur but plaintiff No.3 was residing on the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were dispossessed by the defendant in the middle of the month of June, 2003 forcefully and the defendant occupied possession of the suit land. They tried to take the possession but failed and hence they instituted the suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. 5. The defendant contested the suit inter alia stating that the suit land was lying vacant and full of jungle and the defendant entered into possession of the suit land by clearing the jungle in the year 1984 and in 1985 he constructed his house thereon and since then was residing with his family on the suit land. It is further stated by the defendant that the suit land was originally allotted to Maran Chandra Das and Kamini Sundari Das in the year 1965 but they vacated the possession of the suit land after the communal riot in the year 1980 and thereafter they never entered into the suit land. The allegation of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit land, as alleged in the plaint was false. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The allegation of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit land, as alleged in the plaint was false. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial court considering the pleadings of the parties framed six issues, namely— “(1). Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? (2). Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (3). Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land? (4). Whether the plaintiff No.3 was dispossessed from the suit land illegally and forcibly? (5). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief, as prayed for? (6). To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?” 7. In course of trial the plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW1 and also examined two more witnesses, namely PW2 Anil Das and PW3 Manindra Das. They also exhibited four items of documents. Exbt.1 is a death certificate in the name of Sadhana Bala Das, Exbt.2 is also a death certificate in the name of Maran Chandra Das, Exbt.3 is a letter addressed to O/C, Birganj P.S. by the plaintiff No.3 about the loss of allotment order and Exbt.4 is a khatian No.397 of mouja Rajkhung. The defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and also exhibited three items of documents, namely—Exbt.A, a copy of khatian No.397 of mouja Rajkhung, Exbt.B, a copy of the map and Exbt.C, a copy of khatian No.39 of mouja Rajkhung. The trial Court decided the material issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 8. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 01 of 2006 and by impugned judgment dated 09.08.2006 the appeal was dismissed and hence this second appeal. 9. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee emphatically submitted that Exbt.C and the pleadings of the defendant, if taken into consideration, the title of predecessor of the present plaintiffs is established and while the title of predecessor of the plaintiffs is proved, being admitted by the defendant, by documentary evidence i.e. finally published khatian i.e. Exbt.C, the courts below would decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. He has further submitted that the oral evidence has not been properly construed by both the courts below and the decree of dismissal of the suit and appeal therefore is liable to be interfered. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Bipendra Behari Jamatia v. Jagatmuni alias Jagrumuni Jamatia & ors. He has further submitted that the oral evidence has not been properly construed by both the courts below and the decree of dismissal of the suit and appeal therefore is liable to be interfered. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Bipendra Behari Jamatia v. Jagatmuni alias Jagrumuni Jamatia & ors. reported in (2016) 1 TLR 664. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel submitted that the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee is contrary to the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs and hence cannot be considered. According to Mr. Chakraborty, there is no fault in the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 11. It is a settled position of law that the plaintiffs are to prove their own case by their own pleadings and evidence. They cannot stand on the leg of the defendant. What the defendant has stated cannot prove the case of the plaintiffs unless the plaintiffs proved their case by their own pleadings and evidence. The plaintiffs took a clear stand that the suit land was allotted in their names and in the name their deceased mother Sadhana Bala Das. They even did not state the date or year of allotment. Perhaps, based on Exbt.4 i.e. khatian No.397, they have prepared their pleadings and taken the stand that the allotment was made in favour of Sadhana Bala Das and the plaintiffs. They stated that they have lost the allotment order and in support of it they have brought on record a letter addressed to O/C Birganj P.S. which has got no evidentiary value at all. Since the plaintiffs have taken the stand that the allotment was in their names, they were supposed to prove the fact that the original allotment was in the names of them and their deceased mother but that is not the fact. Exbt.C clearly shows that the allotment was made in the names of Maran Chandra Das, the father of the plaintiffs and husband of Sadhana Bala and another Kamini Sundari Das and Exbt.C is a finally published khatian dated 24.08.1966. That allotment order in the names of Maran Chandra and Kamini Sundari also was not produced. Exbt.C clearly shows that the allotment was made in the names of Maran Chandra Das, the father of the plaintiffs and husband of Sadhana Bala and another Kamini Sundari Das and Exbt.C is a finally published khatian dated 24.08.1966. That allotment order in the names of Maran Chandra and Kamini Sundari also was not produced. Nothing stated in the plaint about any such allotment in the names of Maran Chandra and Kamini Sundari and also there is no pleading or evidence in the part of the plaintiffs that they inherited from Maran Chandra and Kamini Sundari. Even after the written statement also the plaintiffs did not amend their plaint and did not take the stand that they were the legal representatives of Maran Chandra and Kamini Sundari in respect of the suit land which was originally allotted in the names of Maran Chandra and Kamini Sundari. Their stand that it was allotted in their names, neither proved by producing allotment order nor by any other cogent evidence. 12. The fact of Bipendra Behari Jamatia (supra) is quite different. In that case, based on the finally published khatian the plaintiffs sought recovery of possession from the defendant. Here, in this case, the plaintiffs are admittedly not in possession. They stated that they have been dispossessed in the middle of the month of June, 2003. Unfortunately, they could not even say the date on which they were dispossessed and the manner in which they were dispossessed. The defendant is occupying the suit land constructing his house thereon and that has not been done overnight. If it was in the middle of the year 2003, the plaintiffs would immediately bring the suit to recover the possession. Had the plaintiffs were in possession and the defendant entered into possession dispossessing them and constructing the house thereon, it was inevitable that the plaintiffs would approach the police and take other action. While there is no such evidence on record, I cannot term the finding of the courts below as perverse finding. 13. After going through the exhibited documents, I find that Exbt.1 and Exbt.2 are only death certificates. Exbt.4 is the khatian later on prepared in the names of the plaintiffs and Exbt.C is the khatian prepared in the names of Maran Chandra and Kamini Sunduri. Those khatians cannot be said to have not properly construed and considered by the courts below. After going through the exhibited documents, I find that Exbt.1 and Exbt.2 are only death certificates. Exbt.4 is the khatian later on prepared in the names of the plaintiffs and Exbt.C is the khatian prepared in the names of Maran Chandra and Kamini Sunduri. Those khatians cannot be said to have not properly construed and considered by the courts below. Unfortunately, it is for the wrong stand taken by the plaintiffs the suit was dismissed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court and this Court while in the second appeal cannot interfere in the concurrent finding of the courts below in the given pleadings and evidence on record. 14. The second appeal, therefore, stands dismissed but in the facts and circumstances no cost is imposed. 15. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.