The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party to establish title independently with convincing evidence, the significance of documentary evidence over oral evidence, and the need for boundaries to match the survey number in property transactions.

The second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2000 passed in A.S.No.79 of 1997 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi in O.S.No.399 of 1990, dated 27.03.1997.

2. The appellant herein was the defendant before the Trial Court. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The suit property is an extent of 50 Cents of dry land in R.S.No.485/4 in Chinnaselam Village, Kallakurichi Taluk. After the trial, the suit was decreed as prayed for with cost. Aggrieved by which, appeal was preferred by the defendant in the suit confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Appeal was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by which, the defendant before the trial court has preferred this second appeal.

4. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether both the Courts below were correct in decreeing the suit when the claim of the appellant is that the wrong survey number is mentioned in the title deed and the boundary will prevail over the survey number?"

5. During the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law, which are available in the grounds of appeal.

"1. Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in ignoring the well settled principle of law that in a suit for title the plaintiff must succeed independently on his own strength and he cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants case?

2. Whether the Courts below erred in completely ignoring the oral evidence let in on behalf of both the parties. Whether the non discussion of oral evidence vitiates the impugned judgment?"

6. Mr.S.Sounthar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that in the suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff has to succeed independently on his own strength and the same cannot be relied on the weakness of the defendants case. According to the learned counsel, in the suit for declaration and injunction, the respondent/plaintiff has not produced supporting materials to establish his claim, however, the courts below have decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal, based on the weakness of the case of the appellant / defendant. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the decision, Ram Das vs. Salim Ahmed and Another, reported in 1998 (9) SCC 719, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"It may be noted that the plaintiff was not entitled to get declaration of title if such title could not be established by the plaintiff by leading convincing evidence. The lower appellate court had considered the evidence in detail and by giving cogent reasons had come to the finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the title to the property. Such finding was not reversed by the High Court by indicating any reason for such reversal but indicating the weakness of the defendants title the plaintiffs suit was decreed."

The Honble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration of title, as the title could not be established by the plaintiff without adducing convincing evidence. Similarly, the weakness of the defendants case cannot be sufficient to decree any suit, in the absence of acceptable positive evidence in favour of the plaintiff.

7. In the instant case, the plaintiff filed the suit, seeking declaration of title to the suit property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant, who is the appellant before this Court from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent / plaintiff.

8. In support of hiscontention, the respondent