Admissions made in a written statement are sufficient to establish claims in property disputes, negating the need for further proof under Section 58 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 8/8/2019, passed in R.A.No.165/2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Shivamogga.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.139/2007 (Old No.101/2004) is that one K. Shamshuddin was the grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendants. He had three sons and four daughters. The plaintiff has got one sister by name Toha Begum and she has taken her share and hence she is not made as party to the proceedings. The suit schedule property belongs to K. Shamshuddin i.e., grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5. After his death, his sons and daughters have succeeded to the properties. After the death of three sons and four daughters of Shamshuddin, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 succeeded the suit properties as they are the only legal heirs to the properties left behind by Shamshuddin. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the joint owners in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has got half share.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1980, temporary arrangement was made with reference to item No.1 of the suit schedule property. As per the said arrangement, the plaintiff had been in use and occupation of the western portion of the house. The defendants have been in use and occupation of eastern portion of the house. In the year 1984, the plaintiff shifted his residence to Shivamogga and entered into an agreement with reference to western portion with defendant No.6. As per the oral agreement to sell the said portion of the house for Rs.25, 000.00, he has delivered his possession of the western portion to defendant No.6 and he received Rs.10, 000.00 as advance and thereafter Rs.9, 000.00 from defendant No.6. It is also his case that in the Town Municipal Council, Shikaripura, house property was standing in the name of the grandfather Shamshuddin. By taking advantage of name of defendant No.1 as Shamshuddin, he has added his father's name by giving application. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the grand children of Gori Bi and defendant Nos.10 to 15 are issues of Kabura Bi. Defendant Nos.7 to 15 are included as LRs of late Shamshuddin. Even though, the plaintiff and the defendants have been in joint possession of the suit lands, defendant Nos.1 and 2 alone have been taking the profits from the landed property. In the month of June 2004, the plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession, but defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to divide the property and denied the partition and separate possession and hence without any alternative, filed the suit.

5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement and defendant Nos.2 to 5 adopted the statement of defendant No.1. It is admitted that the suit schedule property belongs to Shamshuddin and other averments in the plaint are denied. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have taken the specific contention that in between defendant Nos.1 to 5's father and Abdul Ravoof has divided from the family about 50-55 years back and since then he had been residing separately. There was an oral partition in between plaintiff's father Abdul Majeed and defendant Nos.1 to 5's father Abdul Ravoof. In terms of the oral partition, two brothers have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties allotted to them. Item Nos.1 and 2 properties were allotted to the defendants' father. The plaintiff or his father never in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As per the oral partition, 2 acres 18 1/2 guntas of western portion in 4 acres 37 guntas of land was allotted to the share of plaintiff's father. As plaintiff's father wanted to sell the said property, the partition deed was effected with reference to Sy.No.20/1 as prior to that, there was an oral partition in respect of other