JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.636 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “(i). Is the lower appellate Court justified in holding that as the appellant is not able to prove his title to the suit property, the title of the 1st respondent has to be accepted, overlooking the principle that plaintiff has to stand or fall on his own legs and cannot fall back on the weakness of the defendant's case ? (ii). When admittedly the settlor under Ex.A1 settlement deed, under which plaintiff claims title to the suit property, had title only to an extent of 1¾ cents on the date of settlement deed, is the settlement deed to an extent of 5 ½ cents valid and convey title more than 1 ¾ cents ? 3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. The plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendants for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property said to be measuring 5 ½ cents within the specific boundaries in survey No.109/17 of the suit village. 5. The plaintiff claims title to the above said property as described in the suit based on the settlement deed dated 09.03.1994 said to have been executed by her husband in her favour. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the above said suit property had come to be acquired by her husband by way of the family partition orally effected amongst the members of her husband's family. Thus, claiming title to the property and alleging that the defendants, without any authority, are attempting to interfere with her possession and enjoyment, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 6. Thus, claiming title to the property and alleging that the defendants, without any authority, are attempting to interfere with her possession and enjoyment, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 6. The above said case of the plaintiff is seriously contested by the defendant and at the foremost, the defendants would contend that the case of the plaintiff that the suit property had come to be allotted to the share of her husband in the family oral partition is false and in particular, they have disputed that the plaintiff's husband had been allotted 5½ cents of land in the suit survey number as described in the plaint in the family partition and therefore, it is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff's husband is not entitled to settle the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, it is further contended that on the basis of the said settlement deed, the plaintiff cannot lay a claim of title to the suit property and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. 7. Based on the appreciation of the materials placed on record, it is found that the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. However, the appellate Court had accepted the plaintiff's case by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants have contested the plaintiff's claim of title to the suit property tooth and nail. Accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff having come to the Court with a specific case of seeking the title to the suit property and when the same is refuted by the defendants in toto, it is evident that the plaintiff has to succeed in her case on the strength of the materials placed by her and she cannot be allowed to succeed in her case based on the weakness of the defendants' case. In such view of the matter, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff has placed acceptable and reliable materials to evidence that she has title to the suit property as claimed in the plaint. 9. In such view of the matter, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff has placed acceptable and reliable materials to evidence that she has title to the suit property as claimed in the plaint. 9. As abovenoted, according to the plaintiff, the suit property had come to be allotted to her husband's share in the family oral partition and thereby, her husband had settled the suit property in her favour. Materials placed on record go to show that the suit property and the other properties originally belonged to Ramasamy Gounder, the plaintiff's father-in-law and it is further seen that Ramasamy Gounder had 4 sons viz., Thatchinamoorthy, the plaintiff's husband, Muthukrishnan, the second defendant, Kumar and Ramanujam. It is further seen that the family of Ramasamy Gounder had possessed 31 cents of land in two survey numbers and after the acquisition of two cents of land, out of the same, it is seen that they possessed only 29 cents of land. Now, it is for the plaintiff to establish that her husband had been allotted the suit property lying in survey No.109/17 within the specific boundaries in the family partition. The plaintiff examined as PW1, during the course of cross examination, has admitted that she does not know as to the total extent of the properties owned by her father-in-law and the same is known only to her husband and she does not know the survey number of the suit property and she knew only about the description of the property settled in her favour by her husband and she does not know, how many shares were allotted to the various sharers and the subject matter of the partition in the family partition effected between her husband and his brothers and she does not know as to the properties alienated by her father-in-law, her husband and her brother-in-law and also does not know what remained in the family of her father-in-law after the above said alienations and such being the evidence of the plaintiff, it is evident that she does know about the properties owned by her father-in-law, the family partition orally effected amongst her father-in-law and his sons and the extent of the property allotted to each sharer including her husband and she does not know the alienation particulars effected by her father-in-law and his sons including her husband. Such being the testimony of PW1, the plaintiff, it is seen that she does not know whether at all the suit property had come to be allotted to her husband's share in the family partition. It is thus seen that the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff, would be of no use to sustain the plaintiff's case. 10. The defendants have not disputed the family partition effected in the family of Ramasamy Gounder. Their case is that the case of the plaintiff that the suit property had been allotted to her husband in the family partition is incorrect. As above seen, the plaintiff has pleaded complete ignorance about the partition effected in the family of her father-in-law and the allotment of shares to the various sharers in the said family partition and according to her, the said facts are known only to her husband. To sustain her case, the plaintiff has chosen to examine her husband PW2. PW2, Thatchinamoorthi, in his evidence, during the course of cross examination, has stated that they had effected partition by way of written instrument and he is having particulars of the partition effected, further according to him, the said partition deed has not been registered and also would state that in the partition list brought about during the partition, the share particulars had been specified and he had also produced the same in the Court. However, as regards his above case, there is nil material placed by the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff herself in the plaint that the partition had been effected in her husband's family by way of a written instrument and all that she would aver is that the said partition had been effected orally. It is thus found that PW2 without any basis has come forward with the case as if there is a written instrument to evidence the partition. However, according to him, the same is not registered. But he would assert that there is a partition list with reference to the same and the same would contain the particulars of the shares allotted to the various sharers. If that be so, at least to evidence the shares allotted to the sharers of the partition, the plaintiff or her husband would have endeavored to produce the said document in support of her case. If that be so, at least to evidence the shares allotted to the sharers of the partition, the plaintiff or her husband would have endeavored to produce the said document in support of her case. Though PW2 would aver that he has produced the said document in the Court, however, no such document has seen the light of the day. It is thus found that PW2 has come forward with the false case as if the partition effected in the family is made by a written instrument. 11. Be that as it may, from the evidence of PW2 as adduced during the course of cross examination, it is seen that the joint family of Ramsamy Gounder totally owned 29 cents and it is further seen that out of the above said 29 cents, they had sold 10 cents of land to one Manjini Gounder and therefore, it is seen that the family, after the said alienation, would have possessed only 19 cents of land and the same has been admitted by PW2. Further, PW2 has also admitted that his family members had effected partition only in respect of the remaining 19 cents of land and he would also state that in the said partition, he had been allotted 4½ cents of land. Such being the position, it does not stand to reason as to how the plaintiff makes out a case that her husband had been allotted the suit property measuring 5 ½ cents of land in the family partition. As seen from the evidence of PW2, it is noted that out of 4½ cents of land allotted to him under the family partition, he and his father had jointly alienated 2½ cents of land to his brother during the year 1998 and the said document has come to be marked as Ex.A10. It is thus seen that PW2, out of 4½ cents of land allotted to him under the partition, had also along with his father alienated 2½ cents of land to his brother Kumar by way of Ex.A10 sale deed and in such view of the matter, as rightly put forth by the defendants, thereafter, PW2 would be owning only the balance extent of 1 > cents of land to his share. In such view of the matter, it does not stand to reason as to how PW2 would be competent to settle 5½ cents of land i.e. the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus it is seen that P.W.2 cannot be said to be having the legal competency to settle the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of a settlement deed as alleged in the plaint. The above said admission of PW2 has been failed to be taken note of by the first appellate Court and in such view of the mater, the determination of the first appellate Court that the plaintiff has established her husband's title to the suit property cannot be countenanced in any manner. 12. The reasonings of the first appellate Court that the boundary recitals of Ex.B4 would probablise the suit property as having been allotted to the plaintiff's husband cannot at all be countenanced in any manner. In Ex.B4, the eastern boundary to the property described thereof is shown to be belonging to PW2, Munthukrishn and Sarasu and by way of the same, it cannot be construed without any material that the said property is only the suit property measuring an extent 5½ cents of land and therefore, the above reasonings of the first appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff's husband would have been allotted 5½ cents of land in the family partition cannot at all be accepted and as rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, the reasonings of the first appellate Court on that line is found to be farfetched and does not merit acceptance. 13. It is further seen that the acquisition of the property by PW2 by way of a sale deed marked as Ex.A11 also would not in any manner advance the plaintiff's case. When Ex.A11 sale deed is found to have come into existence much after the settlement deed Ex.A1, as rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, Ex.A11 produced would not enable the plaintiff's husband to settle the property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1. When Ex.A11 sale deed is found to have come into existence much after the settlement deed Ex.A1, as rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, Ex.A11 produced would not enable the plaintiff's husband to settle the property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff's counsel that the plaintiff's husband had acquired the property from his brother Kumar by way of Ex.A11 and therefore, he had title to the suit property as such cannot be accepted, when it is found that Ex.A11 has come to be effected subsequent to the settlement deed marked as Ex.A1 and therefore, the above argument of the plaintiff's counsel and the reasonings of the first appellate Court for justifying the settlement deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of the plaintiff for tracing title to the suit property cannot be countenanced in any manner. 14. The materials placed on record by both the parties do not clearly portray as to the mode of division effected amongst the family members of Ramasamy Gounder. With reference to the allotment of shares, the subsequent alienations made by the sharers etc, had not been clearly spelt out and also established by both the parties. It is thus seen that a clear picture could not be elucidated from the materials placed on record as to the allotment of the shares to the various sharers, the alienations effected by the various sharers of their properties and in such view of the matter, when the plaintiff has come forward with the case that her husband had been allotted the suit property in the family partition and he has settled the same in her favour by way of Ex.A1 settlement and when the said facts had been strongly repudiated by the defendants, as rightly argued, it is for the plaintiff to establish the same. As above discussed, when the plaintiff's husband is unable to trace the title to the suit property and on the other hand, he would only aver that he has been allotted 4½ cents of land in the partition and he had alienated 2½ cents of land to his brother and thereby, when it is seen that at the most, he would be owning 1¾ cents of land, the contention of the plaintiff that her husband had the competency to settle the suit property measuring 5½ cents of land on the date of Ex.A1 sale deed falls to the ground and in such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the trial Court, the plaintiff having failed to establish her husband's title to the suit property as well as her husband competency to settle the suit property in her favour, it is seen that the plaintiff's suit has to fail. 15. In the light of the above reasonings, it is found that the first appellate Court appeared to have focused on the weakness of the defence version and thereby, justified the title of the plaintiff and her husband to the suit property, despite the position that they are having no material to sustain the same. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff having come forward with the suit seeking specific reliefs must stand or fall on the strength of her case and she cannot be permitted to pick holes in the defence version and thereby, endeavour to succeed in her case. As above discussed, when the plaintiff has failed to establish that her husband owned 5½ cents of land i.e. the suit property, accordingly, it is seen that her husband would not be competent to settle the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of Ex.A1 and in such view of the matter, it is found that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek the reliefs sought for in respect of the suit property. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly, answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. For the reasons aforestated, the Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, are set aside and the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.636 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, are confirmed. For the reasons aforestated, the Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, are set aside and the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.636 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.