JUDGMENT : T. Ravindran, J. The first defendant in this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2010 made in A.S. No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Maduranthagam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 made in O.S. No. 174 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthagam. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal. (i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in finding that defendants have not proved their case when as per law the plaintiff has to plead and prove his case and cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants? (ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in reversing the judgment of trial Court on the ground that the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is in possession without proper appreciation of the case? 4. The suit property has been described to be situated in Kancheepuram District, Cheyyur Taluk, Kadukkalure Village and Post, Punja Anatheenam Survey No.35/1 an extent of 14 cents out of 1.94 acres, East by Subramani Reddiar Punaj Land, West by Suit Village Road, North by Kallangkuthu Poram Pokku Land and South by Veeraragava Reddiar Punja land. 5. The above described property, according to the plaintiff, is the Anatheenam land and the same has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff for more than 15 years and further, according to the plaintiff, he has constructed a thatched house in the suit property and paying house tax and water charges, while so, the defendants, without any authority and against law, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for permanent injunction. 6. 6. Per contra, according to the defendants, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint and the suit property is only a vacant site and there is no house in the suit property and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that he has been enjoying the house property by paying tax and water charges is false and further, according to the defendants, they are owning and in possession of 4 cents of land in the suit survey number as described in the written statement and the plaintiff is not living in the suit property and living one kilometer away from the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. As found in the description of the suit property detailed above, it could be seen that it does not indicate that there is any house construction in the suit property. According to the defendants, the suit property is only a vacant site. On the other hand, according to the plaintiff, he has put up a thatched house in suit property and paying house tax and water charges in connection with the same. At the foremost, it is not explained or detailed in the plaint as to how, the plaintiff traces his title to the suit property apart from saying that the suit property is Anatheenam land and the same has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff for the past 15 years. Nothing has been stated as to how come the plaintiff claims title and legal possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 8. Be that as it may, now, according to the plaintiff, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property measuring to an extent of 14 cents within the specific boundaries in the suit survey number for more than 15 years. Further, according to the plaintiff, the revenue records also confirm that the suit property is Anatheenam land. However, the above claim of the plaintiff has not been substantiated by producing the relevant revenue records. As rightly argued, if the same had been produced, it would have disclosed as to what is the extent of the land in the suit survey number, which has been classified as Anatheenam land. 9. However, the above claim of the plaintiff has not been substantiated by producing the relevant revenue records. As rightly argued, if the same had been produced, it would have disclosed as to what is the extent of the land in the suit survey number, which has been classified as Anatheenam land. 9. Now, the plaintiff has produced Exs.A1 and A2, which are the house tax receipt and water tax receipt, for establishing his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The trial Court disbelieved those documents and found that there is no indication in the documents to establish that they pertain to the suit property. As rightly found by the trial court, it could be seen that Exs.A1 and A2 do not bear any house number or survey number to correlate that the same, in any way pertain to the suit property. It is also found by the trial court that the plaintiff has admitted that he has a house 1/2 kilometer away from the plaint schedule property. Therefore, serious doubt has been entertained by the trial Court, as to whether at all Exs.A1 and A2 would have any connection with the suit property, when nothing is available in those documents to point out that it has any nexus with the suit property as described in the plaint. 10. As found earlier, the defendants have taken a specific defence that there is no house structure in the suit property. The suit property described in the plaint also does not show that there is a house in the suit property. In such circumstances, it has to be established by the plaintiff that as to when he had put up the thatched house in suit property as claimed by him and when from, he has been paying the house tax and water charges in respect of the same. Other than marking Exs.A1 and A2, when the same does not in any manner indicate that it pertains to the thatched house alleged to be situated in the suit property, no exception could be taken to the finding of the trial Court that the same would not be sufficient to indicate that they pertain to the suit property or the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 11. As found earlier, the suit property is described to be an extent of 14 cents situated within specific boundaries. 11. As found earlier, the suit property is described to be an extent of 14 cents situated within specific boundaries. However, the trial Court has found that even the plaintiff in his evidence has given boundary recitals, which are found to be contradictory to the boundary recitals found in the plaint. There is no explanation to the same by the plaintiff. That apart, in this case, a commissioner has been appointed and he has filed his report and plan. Even the commissioner, in his report and plan, has pointed out that the boundaries given to the suit property, as found in the plaint, are not correct and according to the commissioner, the boundaries do not pertain to the suit property and the same are not in consonance with the physical features noted by him. To the above report of the commissioner, the plaintiff has not put forth any objection, and therefore, it could be seen that in reality, even the Commissioner has found that the suit property is not properly described by the plaintiff. 12. No doubt, the defendants in their evidence have admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the house in the suit property. But on a reading of the entire evidence placed before the court, it could be seen that according to the defendants' version, the house has been put up in the suit property only after the institution of the suit. Further, the commissioner has also in his report stated that the house construction found by him in the suit property is of a recent origin put up about 6 months ago. Therefore, it could be seen that the house construction found on the suit property is of a recent origin and therefore, it is highly doubtful whether at all Exs.A1 and 2 would be related to the thatched house, now, found in the suit property. As found earlier, it has not been detailed by the plaintiff in the plaint or explained in his evidence as to when he had put up thatched house in the suit property. 13. Now according to the plaintiff, the suit property is classified as Anatheenam land and the revenue records would point out to the same. However, the same has not been substantiated. 13. Now according to the plaintiff, the suit property is classified as Anatheenam land and the revenue records would point out to the same. However, the same has not been substantiated. If really as claimed by the plaintiff, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 15 years and the revenue authorities had acknowledged his possession, as rightly argued by the plaintiff, he would have summoned the revenue records and marked the same to substantiate that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years as claimed by him. However, other than marking Exs.A1 and 2, nothing has been placed before the court to substantiate that the suit property as described in the plaint is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. 14. The trial court has rightly disbelieved the case of the plaintiff and in the right perspective analysed the evidence and rejected the case of the plaintiff. However, the first appellate court on the basis that, inasmuch as the defendants have failed to establish the enjoyment of the property in the suit survey number claimed to be in their possession, it had accepted the plaintiff's case on the admission made by the defendants with reference to the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. However, the above approach of the first appellate court seems to be incorrect, when the defendants have taken a specific plea that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint and when that fact has not been established by the plaintiff and when Exs.A1 and 2 do not advance the case of the plaintiff to hold that the suit property as described in the plaint is in his possession and enjoyment and when the plaintiff has not established that the thatched house in the suit property has been put up by him long back and when there is no nothing to indicate that Exs.A1 and 2 relate to the suit property. It could be seen that the first appellate court has wrongly ignored the Commissioner's report and plan, particularly with reference to the description of the property and based upon the admission on the part of the defendants proceed to uphold the plaintiff's case. 15. It could be seen that the first appellate court has wrongly ignored the Commissioner's report and plan, particularly with reference to the description of the property and based upon the admission on the part of the defendants proceed to uphold the plaintiff's case. 15. The plaintiff having filed the suit seeking the appropriate relief, should establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. He cannot pick holes in the defendants' case and thereby, attempt to succeed in his case. As found earlier, the plaintiff has failed to establish as to how come, he has valid title and legal possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property has not been properly described. The suit property has not been shown to be in his possession and enjoyment by acceptable and reliable evidence. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the thatched house in the suit property has been put up long back and further, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the description of the property has been correctly given. In such circumstances, it could be seen that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the suit. 16. In the light of the above observations, it could be seen that the first appellate court has wrongly placed the burden of proof on the defendants and on that premise upheld the plaintiff's case, despite the plaintiff having failed to establish his legal possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint. It could be seen that the first appellate court has misdirected itself in the appreciation of the evidence and upheld the plaintiff's case, merely on the basis of some stray admission on the part of the defendants, without considering the merits of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court by the respective parties. Therefore, it could be seen that the findings and conclusions of the first appellate court cannot be justified. 17. In conclusion, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are answered in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff. Therefore, it could be seen that the findings and conclusions of the first appellate court cannot be justified. 17. In conclusion, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are answered in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff. In the light of the above, the judgment and Decree dated 01.07.2010 made in A.S. No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Maduranthagam, are set aside and the Judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 made in O.S.No.174 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Maduranthagam are restored. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.