IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming ownership in partition suits, and mere revenue records are insufficient without supporting documentation.

JUDGMENT :

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

1. Heard Sri N. Nitesh, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Respondent No. 1 herein had filed O.S. No. 214 of 2008 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, for partition of the suit schedule property on the ground that the said property is ancestral property and self acquired properties of the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the 1st respondent, which requires to be partitioned among the family members of this couple.

3. The case of the 1st respondent was that late Sri Krishnaiah and Smt. Rosamma had five sons viz. late Krishnaiah, Subbaiah (D1), Gangaiah (D2) and Chengalarayulu (D3) and late Ramachandraiah. The 1st respondent, who is the plaintiff was the wife of late Krishnaiah and the 4th defendant is the wife of late Ramachandraiah. The case of the 1st respondent is that both late Krishnaiah and Smt. Rosamma had died intestate and all their sons succeeded to the estate of these two persons and subsequently, 1st respondent and 4th respondent succeeded to the interest of their late husbands.

4. The suit schedule property consists of two items. The 1st item is Ac. 0.45 cents of land in Sy. No. 21/4 and the 2nd item was Ac. 0.22 cents of land in Sy. No. 21/3 of Chuttu Gunta Rama Puram Village of Ramachandra Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. None of the defendants had raised any serious objection to the plaint except the 3rd defendant, who is the appellant herein.

6. The defense of the 3rd defendant/appellant was that there was an earlier partition under which item No. 2 of the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the 4th defendant/4th respondent herein. Further, item No. 1 property was purchased in the name of Smt. Rosamma who had then executed a deed of gift dated 03.07.1987 in favour of the 3rd defendant/appellant due to which, the said property cannot be included for partition between the living brothers and the widows of the deceased brothers.

7. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree accepting the plea of the 1st respondent herein, directing that the respondents 1 to 4 and the appellant would have 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property. This preliminary decree dated 23.06.2014 was challenged, by way of an appeal bearing A.S. No. 18 of 2016, before the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. This appeal was dismissed on 30.11.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present Second Appeal has been preferred.

8. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court had held that 4th respondent, to whom item No. 2 property had been allotted in an earlier partition, had not made any such claim and had essentially conceded that the said property was available for partition. The trial Court and the appellate Court also held that the 3rd defendant/appellant had not been able to discharge the burden of demonstrating that there was a deed of gift dated 03.07.1987, executed by late Smt. Rosama, in favour of the 3rd defendant/appellant herein. Both the Courts also rejected the contention of the 3rd defendant/appellant herein that the revenue records had been mutated in favour of the 3rd defendant/appellant and the same would be sufficient to demonstrate his title over the land. Both the Courts held that mere revenue entries, in the absence of any further supporting material, especially in partition suits, cannot be treated as proof of title.

9. Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below had fallen in error in not accepting the revenue records as proof of title. He would further submit that the long standing entries made in favour of the appellant herein and the silence of the other parties to such entries is sufficient to make out a claim of ownership over item No. 1 of the suit schedule property.

10. The findings of both the Courts are based on the admission of the parties to the litigation as far as item No. 2 of the suit schedule properties is concerned. As far as item No. 1 is concerned, the admitted case on all sides is that the pro