favour of his wife on 22.09.1970 which document has come to be marked as Ex.A3. By way of Ex.A3, the first defendant had settled an extent of 11 cents out of 22 cents in the suit survey number and on that premise, the Courts below had proceeded to hold that inasmuch as the first defendant had been allotted only 22 cents out of 44 cents accordingly, he had only settled 11 cents out of 22 cents under Ex.A3 deed and on that reasonings, proceeded to accept the theory of oral partition projected by the plaintiff as well as his claim of title to the suit property based on Ex.A1 settlement. On a perusal of Ex.A3, settlement deed, nowhere in the said document, the first defendant has admitted that he had been allotted only 22 cents out of 44 cents in the oral partition between him and his brother. Merely on the footing that he had settled an extent of 11 cents out of 22 cents in favour of his wife under the said settlement deed, on that basis we cannot consider or hold that he had entitlement only to 22 cents and not the entire 44 cents in the suit survey number. The Courts below had also proceeded to hold that inasmuch as, the first defendant had failed to establish as to what had happened to the remaining extent not covered under Ex.A3 deed, on that reasonings also proceeded to accept the plaintiff's case. When the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, it is for the plaintiff to establish his claim of title to the suit property based on acceptable and reliable materials. As above discussed, the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his case in toto particularly his father's entitlement to the suit property as projected by him and when there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiff to establish his title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner, in all, it is found that the Courts below without property appreciating the materials placed on record in the right perspective and on the other hand, with the mindset of finding the defects in the defence version one way or the other, proceeded to uphold the plaintiff's case sans any material pointing to the same and as the abovesaid determination of the Courts below upholding the plaintiff's case is found to be based on perverse findings, illogical reasonings and irrational thinking, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
