placed by the plaintiff to hold that he has a valid title, legal possession and enjoyment of the suit property as such and on the other hand, the materials placed by the defendants in toto would lead to the conclusion that the suit property only belongs to the Government for the common enjoyment of the weaving community of the village, the first appellate Court is found to have accepted the plaintiff's case on the basis of improper and erroneous appreciation of the materials placed on record and also finding fault on the part of the defendants in failing to establish their defence version. As rightly putforth by the defendants' counsel, when the plaintiff has come forward with the suit seeking specific relief, it is for the plaintiff to establish his case by placing acceptable, reliable and convincing materials and the plaintiff failing to do so, cannot be allowed to pick holes in the defendants' case and thereby, endeavour to succeed in his case, sans any material pointing to his case. In such view of the matter, it is found that the first appellate Court has seriously dealt with the failure of the defendants 1 to 3 in adducing the evidence in support of their case and on that basis, proceeded to uphold the plaintiff's case, despite the failure of the plaintiff to establish his claim of title to the suit property as above discussed. It is thus found that the reasonings and conclusions of the first appellate Court for accepting the plaintiff's case, not based upon the proper appreciation of the materials placed on record in the correct perspective, as rightly argued, the reasonings and conclusions of the first appellate Court could be only termed as perverse and illogical and hence, the judgement and decree of the first appellate Court cannot be allowed to sustain any further. In view of the abovesaid discussions, the first appellate Court has totally erred in drawing adverse inference against the defendants in not establishing their case, particularly, failing to appreciate that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title in respect of the suit property. Equally, the first appellate Court has not properly appreciated the document and materials placed by the defendants in the matter and particularly, eschewing the documents placed by way of Exs.B1, X1 & X2, the records maintained by the Government in its usual course of business and also, it is noted that the first appellate Court has erroneously and without any basis placed reliance upon the plaintiff's documents as above discussed, which do not at all corelate to the suit property and also cannot be treated as equivalent to documents of title and found to have erred in placing reliance upon Ex.A1 despite the fact that Ex.A1 is not shown to be pertaining to any survey number or pymash number to corelate with the suit property, in such view of the matter, it is found that the first appellate Court has totally failed to look into the materials placed on record in the correct legal approach and thereby, erred in upholding the plaintiff's case and in such
