". . . Where a plaintiff, in a suit to quiet title, describes the title specifically as the only title on which he relies, his recovery must be had on his title as laid, Ragsdale 9, 10, 11. v. Mitchell (1884), 97 Ind. 458, and where a plaintiff seeks to quiet title on the claim of absolute ownership, he is not entitled to relief by showing himself entitled to partition, or some other remedy of a different character, Johnson v. Murray (1887), 112 Ind. 154, 13 N.E. 273, 2 Am. St. 174." Ault v. Miller (1932), 203 Ind. 487, 493, 181 N.E. 35. And, ". . . where title is specifically pleaded, the particular allegations will control the general statements of the pleading."
A plaintiff in a quiet title suit must recover on the strength of his own title. Ragsdale v. Mitchell (1884), 97 Ind. 458; Tolleston Club, etc. v. Carson (1919), 188 Ind. 642, 651, 123 N.E. 169; Ault v. Miller (1932), 203 Ind. 487, 493, 181 N.E. 35. In the case of Tolleston Club, etc. v. Carson, supra, this court said: "In suits to quiet title the plaintiff must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own title.
Brady v. Gregory, (1912) 49 Ind. App. 355, 97 N.E. 452. Also, a plaintiff seeking to quiet title must recover upon the strength of his own title. Ross v. Legler, (1964) 245 Ind. 655, 199 N.E.2d 346. Furthermore, in an action to quiet title, where plaintiff specifically describes title on which he relies, recovery must be on title as laid. Ault v. Miller, (1932) 203 Ind. 487, 181 N.E. 35. The evidence establishes that Combs have claimed ownership of the land in question and have diligently paid taxes on that land since 1950. At the time Fresons surveyed the disputed land in 1976, Combs immediately pulled up the survey stakes, claiming the property as their own land.
The appellee did prove 3. legal title in himself, Burns' 1943 Repl., ยง 56-115; Sheets v. Stiefel (1947), 117 Ind. App. 584, 74 N.E.2d 921, and so was entitled to a decree quieting that title unless a successful defense was interposed. It has always been held in Indiana that under the general denial in quiet title suits the defendant may give in evidence all defenses he may have, either legal or equitable. 4, 5. Ault v. Miller (1932), 203 Ind. 487, 181 N.E. 35; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grantham (1905), 165 Ind. 279, 75 N.E. 265; 4 Watson's Revision of Works' Practice 1301. Under Rule 1-3 the answer filed in this case entitled the appellant to all defenses heretofore available under the general denial, and so the appellant was entitled to prove any equitable defense to appellee's complaint that she might have.
In an action to quiet title, where the plaintiff specifically describes the title upon which he relies, his recovery must be upon the title as laid. Ault v. Miller (1932), 203 Ind. 487, 181 N.E. 35; Danforth v. Meeks (1911), 176 Ind. 400, 96 N.E. 153; Kozanjieff v. Petroff (1939), 215 Ind. 286, 19 N.E.2d 563, 122 A.L.R. 479. It is provided by statute that: "Conveyances of land or of any interest therein, shall be by deed in writing, subscribed, sealed and duly acknowledged by the grantor or by his attorney, except bona fide leases for a term not exceeding three (3) years."