Partition under Hindu Law need not be borne out by a document.

Mohan, J.

1. The appeal arises out of O.S.No. 1217 of 1980 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem, in which the respondent herein prayed for partition of his one half share in the suit schedule properties and allotment of one such share to him with possession. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was as follows:

By a sale deed dated 13.3.1964 the plaint A Schedule property came to be purchased jointly in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant from one Narasiammal and others. Similarly, on 7.3.1966 the plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased the B schedule property from one Sathan Bibi Ammal. From the date of those purchase the plaintiff and the defendant are being in enjoyment of the properties. However, for the sake of convenience, they are separately enjoying portions of the properties by separate cultivation without any division by metes and bounds. By the joint efforts of both parties the house in the A schedule land was constructed seven years ago at a cost of Rs. 15,000. Adjoining that house there are two sheds put up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is occupying a portion of the house and the two sheds and the remaining portion of the terraced house is occupied by the defendant. After the purchase, both the sharers planted 150 coconut trees in the A schedule property. Two years prior to the suit, they also planted 200 coconut trees. In the year of suit and in the previous year both sharers planted about 300 coconut trees in the B schedule property. There are two wells, one in each, in the A and B schedule properties. Both parties spent a sum of Rs. 10,000 and dug a new well in the B schedule property. There is an oil engine installed in the newly dug well, which was dug at common cost. There is an electric motor with pump set of 5 H.P. installed in the A schedule well. Thus, both the parties have been exercising equal rights in the entire A and B schedule lands, together with the well and pump set. Recently, misunderstandings arose between the parties. At the instigation of the sons of the defendant, the defendant and her men are giving lot of pin pricks to the plaintiff and his family members in the enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiff jointly with the defendant. In fact, recently the plaintiff was prevented by the defendant and her men from entering the properties, particularly the suit building which is in the plaintiffs occupation. All mediations failed. Hence the suit.

2. In her written statement, the defendant urged that it is false to state that the plaintiff and the defendant are jointly cultivating the A and B schedule properties and that they are in separate possession and enjoyment only for the sake of convenience without actual division by metes and bounds. As early as in 1969, the plaintiff and the defendant actually divided both the schedule item into two equal shares and they have been separately cultivating their respective portions. This was by means of an oral partition. The defendant was allotted the northern portion while the plaintiff was allotted the southern portion. Before partition, there were only two thatched sheds in the A schedule property, of which one shed went to the share of the defendant in the oral partition. About three years after the said partition, the defendant spent about Rs. 50,000 and constructed a pucca house in the place of the thatched shed in her share. The entire money therefor was solely spent by the defendant and the plaintiff has nothing to do with the house, in which the defendant and her sons alone are now living. The plaintiff has absolutely no manner of right or possession either to the terraced house or the thatched house adjoining the same. It is false to say that ten years after the purchase the plaintiff and the defendant jointly planted 150 coconut trees in the A schedule property and again they planted 200 coconut trees about two years prior to suit and again 300 coconut trees in the year prior to the institution of the s