Proof of possession, revenue records, and timing of property transfer are crucial in determining ownership under an oral partition.

1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of injunction.

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the suit property and other properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, his father and brother and in an oral partition that took place 20 years ago, prior to the filing of the suit, the suit properties and two other properties were allotted to the share of the respondent/plaintiff and patta was also granted to him in patta No.609 and for the past 20 years, he is enjoying the property and the appellant/defendant on the basis of a document claimed title to the suit property as if, it belonged to the plaintiff's father and brother and the suit property was allotted to them under the oral partition and they sold the same to the appellant and on the basis of the said sale deed, the appellant/defendant also changed the patta in his name without notice to the respondent/plaintiff and attempted to interfere with the respondent/plaintiff's possession. Therefore, the suit was filed for the relief stated above.

3. The appellant/defendant contested the suit stating that in the oral partition that took place in the family of the plaintiff's father and brother, the suit property was not allotted to the plaintiff's share and in the oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's father and brother and the father of the respondent/plaintiff was allotted the northern 10 acres in S.No.106/4 and southern 8.5 acres was allotted to the share of Mr.Thiagarajan, and the plaintiff was allotted the land in S.No.105/3 and the property in S.No.130/14 and the plaintiff's father Thiru.Govindasamy and Mr.Thiagarajan, sold the entire extent in S.No.106/4, which was later classified into S.No.106/4A & 4b to the appellant/defendant under a registered sale deed in the year 1996. Thereafter, patta was issued in the name of the appellant/defendant and eversince from the date of sale, the appellant/defendant is in absolute possession of the property and the respondent/plaintiff was also aware of the sale and as a matter of fact, he refused to change the patta and also refused to participate in the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant and the respondent/plaintiff refused to become a party under the sale deed. Therefore, the appellant/defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. Both the Courts below believed the case of the respondent/plaintiff and held that in the oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of the respondent/plaintiff and that was also evidenced by the revenue records filed by him and except the sale deed executed in the year 1996, the appellant/defendant has not produced any record to show that the property was in enjoyment of his vendor prior to the sale and the documents filed by the appellant/defendant were obtained after the filing of the suit and therefore, the plaintiff's case of oral partition is true and decreed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal.

5. Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the respondent has stated that in the oral partition that took place 20 years, prior to the filing of the suit, the suit property was allotted to his share, he did not state what are the other properties allotted to his share in the said oral partition and the revenue records will not prove his possession and enjoyment and taking advantage of the close relationship between the parties, he changed the patta in his name and that will not confer any title to the respondent/plaintiff and the father of the respondent/plaintiff was examined as D.W.2, and he has also given evidence that in the oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of his son Mr.Thiagarajan, and the respondent/plaintiff was not allotted any share and without considering the evidence of D.W.2, who is competent to speak about the oral partition,