The court held that there was no evidence to prove the alleged oral partition and that the settlement deed was not valid.

1. This second appeal is focused by the second defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 012. 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.35 of 2001 confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2001 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in O.S.No.89 of 1995. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Avoiding discursive delineation and detailing of the facts in view of both the courts below having set forth the cases of the respective parties at length, the summation and summarisation of relevant factual scenario, which is absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal could be portrayed thus:

The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.89 of 1995 seeking the following main relief as against the defendants.

- for partition and separate possession of 2/3 share from out of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs and to put the plaintiffs in possession of the same. (extracted as such from the copy of the plaint)

The defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement resisting the suit.

3. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the fourth plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 Govindammal and Ex.A1 was marked. On the defendants side D2 was examined as DW1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.B1 to B25 were marked.

4. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, the first appeal A.S.No.35 of 2001 was filed by the second defendant, for nothing but to be dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the second defendant has filed this second appeal on various grounds by setting out a few substantial questions of law in the memorandum of appeal.

5. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the second defendant/appellant and Mr. V. Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents.

6. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the Courts below have considered the material evidence in the case and have properly applied the law relating to the consideration and appreciation of family arrangement, while considering the defence put forward by the defendant in this regard?

2. Whether the courts below have properly considered the material evidence in the case namely, Ex.A1, which is a gift (settlement) deed gifting undivided share in the co-parcenary property? and

3. Whether the Courts below properly considered the material evidence, namely Ex.B16 and Ex.B17, which have been brought into existence by the plaintiffs pending the suit which contain the admission to lean towards the family arrangement?"

7. A deep analysis and poring over of the judgments of both the courts below including the typed set of papers would demonstrate and display that the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and for separate possession of 2/3rd share of the suit properties mainly on the ground that by virtue of the settlement deed dated 05.05.1963 executed in favour of Govindammal by her father Venkata Reddy @ Pakki Redy and her fathers brother viz., Chenga Reddy settling their 2/3 rd share in the joint family comprised of those two brothers and their one other brother Venkatarama Reddy. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Govindammal; plaintiffs 1 to 4 are her sons, 5th plaintiff is her daughter and 6th plaintiff is the widow of her deceased son Jagannathan and the 7th plaintiff is the minor daughter of the 6th plaintiff. The first defendant Markandeya Reddy is the son of deceased Venkatarama Reddy, who would claim that there was on oral partition during the year 1984 and as per which the said settlement deed was agreed to be ignored a