JUDGMENT: The plaintiff, who lost before the lower appellate Court is the appellant. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and the second defendant is the first defendant’s cousin. The first defendant’s father is one Samburaya Padaiyachi and the second defendant’s father is Nangoor Padaiyachi. While it is the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral partition between the father of the first defendant and second defendant, the case of the second defendant is that though the properties were partitioned about 15 years prior to the filing of the suit, the same was not measured and the partition was made only roughly. There is no dispute between the parties that on 1.3.1979, the first and second defendants entered into a registered partition as per Ex.B-1.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that his father, the first defendant, has not been worldly-wise and a dependent on the second defendant and taking advantage of that, the second defendant prevailed in March, 1979 unnecessarily detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff’s family. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the partition entered into between the first and second defendants is n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document