JUDGMENT : N. Anand Venkatesh, J. The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 299 of 2003 seeking for the relief of declaration of title for the first and second schedule properties and for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the first schedule property belongs to the mother of the plaintiff which was owned on the basis of a court auction sale. The second schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Chelladurai, son of Kannaya Thevar, through a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1969 marked as Exhibit A2 and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and an attempt was made by the defendants to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Under such circumstances, the suit came to be filed before the trial court. 3. The defendants denied the exclusive title claimed by the plaintiff mainly on the ground that there was no title deed insofar as the first schedule property is concerned. Insofar as the second schedule property is concerned, the patta (Ex.A1) was issued in the name of five persons and from one of the person's son, the plaintiff has purchased 60 cents and it is not known as to when any partition took place and how the vendor was entitled for 60 cents. Accordingly, the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established title over the suit properties and accordingly dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S. No. 42 of 2005 and the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 07.08.2006 allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed before this Court. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S. No. 42 of 2005 and the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 07.08.2006 allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed before this Court. 5. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court when the second appeal was admitted on 13.02.2007: “(1) Whether the 1 st Appellate Court is right in terming the evidence of the appellant/ 1st defendant as admission in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court reported in 200 (9) S.C.C., 214, and 2002 (1) M.L.J., 749. (2) Whether the 1 st appellate Court is right in placing the burden of proof on the appellant/ 1st defendant, when it is the settled principle that the plaintiff alone has to establish the claim through impeccable evidence? (3) Whether the 1 st appellate Court is justified in accepting Exhibit A.2, when the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to trace his vendor's title over the second schedule property?” 6. This court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 7. There are two items of properties for which the plaintiff was claiming title. Insofar as the first schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff claimed that it belonged to his mother Vadivammal and to substantiate the same, the boundary description in Exhibit A2 sale deed was relied upon. Even though the plaintiff claimed that the first schedule property came to the mother through a court auction sale, the same was not substantiated and no document was placed before the court to establish the title. 8. Insofar as the second schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff was placing reliance upon Exhibit A2/sale deed. The sale deed was executed by one Chelladurai, who is the son of Kannaya Thevar. The original title is based on Exhibit A1, which is the settlement register in which the names of five persons have been mentioned, namely, Kannaya Thevar, Vadivammal, Maruthaya Thevar, Irulappa Thevar and Muthukrishna Thevar. 9. The trial court, while dealing with the evidence, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no document to establish as to how Kannaya Thevar became entitled exclusively to 60 cents of land. 9. The trial court, while dealing with the evidence, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no document to establish as to how Kannaya Thevar became entitled exclusively to 60 cents of land. There was no evidence available to show that the property was partitioned among the parties and Kannaya Thevar was allotted with 60 cents. 10. In view of the above, the trial court found that the plaintiff has not proved the title over the suit properties and has not discharged the burden of proof and therefore proceeded to dismiss the suit by judgment and decree dated 28.09.2004. 11. The appellate court, while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, has not rendered any finding as to how the above finding of the trial court is erroneous. On the other hand, the appellate court has proceeded to test the right claimed by the defendants and has picked holes in the case of the defendants and thereby has proceeded to allow the appeal by judgment and decree dated 07.08.2006 by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. 12. In the case in hand, unfortunately, both the courts below have assumed that the total extent of the property originally was 2 acres and 40 cents. In order to clarify the same, this court looked into the original document that was marked as Exhibit A1 and it is seen that it is 2 hectares and 40 ares and not 2 acres and 40 cents as was presumed by both the courts below. 2 hectares and 40 ares will work out to approximately 5 acres 93 cents. The plaintiff has not established as to how 5 acres 93 cents was divided among the parties and how Kannaya Thevar became entitled to 60 cents. Unless and otherwise it is established that Kannaya Thevar became exclusively entitled to 60 cents, the sale deed/Exhibit A2 which was executed by Chelladurai, son of Kannaya Thevar, in favour of the plaintiff, does not create a title for 60 cents with respect to the second schedule property. 13. Insofar as the first schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff is tracing his title from his mother Vadivammal. There is no absolutely no document available to establish as to how the mother of the plaintiff became entitled for the first schedule property. 14. 13. Insofar as the first schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff is tracing his title from his mother Vadivammal. There is no absolutely no document available to establish as to how the mother of the plaintiff became entitled for the first schedule property. 14. The trial court on considering this evidence came to the categorical conclusion that the plaintiff did not prove the title for both the first schedule and the second schedule properties. The trial court also found that there was no partition of the total property. Therefore, since the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof, the trial court had dismissed the suit. 15. The first appellate court absolutely went on a tangent. After considering Exhibits A1 and A2, the appellate court starts discussion about about the defence taken by the defendants and their evidence and comes to the conclusion that the stand taken by the defendants is not sustainable and on that basis proceeded to allow the appeal in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 16. The appellate court does not even give any reasons in the judgment as to how the findings of the trial court on the title with regard to first and second schedule properties are erroneous. This is a mandate that is required under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC which has not been complied with by the appellate court. 17. The appellate court has given a strange reason that since Exhibit A2 sale deed is more than 30 years old, it can create a title in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the second schedule property. The appellate court has desperately tried to read between the lines regarding the answers given by the defendants during cross-examination. All these attempts made by the appellate court does not in any way establish as to how ultimately the appellate court had confirmed title in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the first and second schedule properties. 18. The appellate court has desperately tried to read between the lines regarding the answers given by the defendants during cross-examination. All these attempts made by the appellate court does not in any way establish as to how ultimately the appellate court had confirmed title in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the first and second schedule properties. 18. Insofar as the substantial questions of law is concerned, declaration of title cannot be made in favour of the plaintiff based on some admissions made by the first defendant in the course of evidence and the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish title and it cannot be substituted by picking holes in the defence taken by the defendants and the stray admissions made by them at the time of tendering evidence. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly in favour of the appellants. 19. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, the first appellate court went wrong in placing the burden of proof upon the defendants when the plaintiff has failed to establish title over the suit properties. The plaintiff has to stand or fall based on his evidence and the title cannot be dependent on the stand taken by the defendants. The second substantial question of law is answered accordingly in favour of the appellants. 20. Insofar as the third substantial question of law is concerned, this Court has already held that Exhibit A2 does not establish title of the vendor since it is not known as to how the vendor’s father became entitled for 60 cents out of the total extent of 5 acres 93 cents. Therefore, this substantial questions of law is also answered in favour of the appellants. 21. In the result, the second appeal stands allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S. No. 42 of 2005 dated 07.08.2006 is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif Court in O.S. No. 299 of 2003 dated 29.09.2004 is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.