The burden of proof for reunion after partition lies on the party asserting it, and joint ownership cannot be presumed solely from revenue records.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.332 of 1983 is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for injunction. The case of the appellant was that the suit properties and other properties belonged to him and his brother Somiah and 40 years prior to the filing of the suit, they orally partitioned their properties and were enjoying the properties allotted to them under the said oral partition and thereafter, his brother Somiah sold the properties which were allotted to him to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 3.7.1947 for valuable consideration and his brother Somiah was having only a house site with him after the sale of the properties to the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the properties and he is enjoying the same. The 1st defendant is the widow of his brother Somiah and as she issued a notice claiming her share in the suit properties and attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties the suit was filed for declaration and injunction.

3. The 1st defendant filed the written statement contesting that there was no oral partition between the plaintiff and his brother Somiah and in the year 1946 disputes and misunderstanding arose between her and her husband Somiah and the 1st defendant was thrown out of the house and to defeat the rights of the 1st defendant a fraudulent deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff which was never acted upon and even after the execution of the said deed the plaintiff and his brother continued to enjoy the properties as co-owners and thereafter the 1st defendant and Somiah reconciled and started living together and after the death of Somiah also the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were enjoying the properties in common and the pattas also stand in the name of both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and for some time they were enjoying certain properties exclusively by mutual arrangement and as the plaintiff did not effect the partition, the 1st defendant issued a notice and therefore the properties are the joint family properties belonging to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration as prayed for.

4. The trial Judge accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit and the first appellate Court reversed the findings and held that the sale deed Ex.A1 was only a fictitious one and was not acted upon and the plaintiff did not prove the oral partition and the pattas and kist receipts would prove that the properties were enjoyed by the plaintiff and 1st defendant in common and therefore the plaintiff is only entitled to half share in the suit properties and granted a decree in respect of half share in favour of the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and also declined to grant of injunction.

Hence, the Second Appeal is filed.

5. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal by this Court:

(1) Whether or not the finding of the first appellate Court not based on the legal evidence is vitiated by illegalities?

(2) Whether or not the first appellate Court committed illegality in giving a finding contrary to his own observation?

(3) Whether or not the first appellate Court committed illegality in arriving the title only on the basis of patta despite the registered sale deed under Ex.A1. ?

6. At the time of hearing the arguments of the Second Appeal the substantial questions of law were reframed as follows and the learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted their arguments in respect of the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether or not the first appellate Court committed illegality in arriving the title only on the basis of patta despite the registered sale deed under Ex.A1. ?

(2) Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in holding that