13.As abovenoted, at the first instance, the plaintiff would trace title to the suit property through his ancestors, however, the plaintiff has not placed any document whatsoever to establish that his ancestors had enjoyed the suit property and only through them, the plaintiff had acquired title to the suit property. As found by the Courts below, even though, the document of title may not be available with the plaintiff for establishing the title of his ancestors, however, at least some records pointing to the assertion of title by his ancestors in respect of the suit property should have been produced by the plaintiff for sustaining his case that he had derived title to the suit property through his ancestors. On the other hand, all the documents projected by the plaintiff only stand in his name and no document whatsoever has been placed for consideration evidencing that his ancestors, particularly, his father, at least, had enjoyed the suit property by obtaining patta, paying kist etc., and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff, that his father had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years cannot at all be accepted without there being any material to buttress the same. In such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiff that his ancestors owned the suit property and through them, he had acquired the suit property, as such, cannot be believed, accepted and rightly discountenanced by the Courts below.
