settled principle of law that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and cannot get any benefit from the weakness of the defendant in the suit. Since, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest so the burden was obviously on the plaintiff to establish his right, title and interest and as already indicated above the plaintiff could not file any document of title and the Ext. 5 which is claimed by the plaintiff to be a settlement in favour of Neman Singh does not bear the name of Neman Singh so, the same was rightly not accepted by the trial court to be a document of title in favour of the plaintiff but the same was entertained by the learned First Appellate Court, by erroneously mentioning that the settlement was made in favour of Neman Singh though the said document does not bear the name of Neman Singh. Further there is no material in the record to suggest as to in what manner the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land. There is no finding by the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has any title or possession except the documents which were referred to by it. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned First Appellate Court has committed perversity by referring to the principle of law that in case a person is having title over a land, the same land cannot be settled with another person unless the earlier person who is having title is evicted from the same by resorting to due process of law. As the plaintiff failed to establish his right, title and interest over the suit land and rightly held so by the trial court, there was no occasion to apply the said principle of law, by the first appellate court. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative.
