An unregistered deed of partition is admissible in evidence if it does not purport to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immoveable property of value of Rs. 100 or above. Partition of immovable property can be effected by oral agreement.

RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. :- This appeal arises from the decree in O. S. No. 39 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore. The first plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted by five persons, claiming as heirs of one Syed Akbar Sahib, who died on 25-7-1940, for partition and separate possession of their share of properties. Syed Akbar Sahib left behind him his widow, Biju Bi, the 4th plaintiff, four sons and two daughters. Of them, one son, Syed Ahamad Sahib, and a daughter, Syadana Bibi, are now dead. The interest of the deceased daughter, Syadana Bi, has devolved upon the other heirs by virtue of a compromise arrangement with her husband, one of her heirs. Syed Ahamad Sahib died on 3-10-1951, leaving behind him defendants 1 to 5 to the suit, as heirs.

According to the plaintiffs, the late Syed Akbar Sahib left behind him the properties mentioned in Schedules A to C, that after his lifetime, his eldest son, Syed Ahamad Sahib, who was a Circle Inspector of Police, managed the properties by virtue of power of attorney executed by other members of the family, and that in the course of his management he acquired D Schedule properties. The plaintiffs further claimed that after the death of Syed Ahamad Sahib, his heirs, defendants to the action, acquired E schedule properties out of the income from the estate of the deceased Syed Akbar Sahib. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed administration of the estate of the deceased Syed Akbar Sahib and allotment of their shares in the properties.

2. The heirs of Syed Ahamad Sahib contested the suit. They contended that the estate of the deceased, Syed Akbar Sahib, had been completely administered, a partition effected between all the heirs, and what each possessed thereafter was his or her own property. According to them, the heirs of Syed Akbar met in July 1943, agreed to auction the properties between themselves, and divide the proceeds.

In support of their case, they relied upon Ex. B. 11, an unregistered deed of partition between the heirs, and also Exs. B. 12 to B. 16, the receipts granted by the heirs for having received their aliquot share of the total realisation from the estate. They also raised a contention relating to the extent of the properties, which formed part of the estate of the deceased.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Syed Akbar Sahib left only the properties set out in plaint schedule A and the outstandings, except item No. 2, that were mentioned in schedule B. He accepted the case of the defendants that there was a partition of the properties left by the deceased Syed Akbar Sahib on 12-10-1943, and held that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to sue for partition again or claim the properties subsequently acquired, namely, D and E schedule properties. On those findings, the suit was dismissed. The first plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Court.

4. There is no controversy before us as to the properties that belonged to the estate of the deceased. It must, therefore, be taken that item 2 of schedule B and those covered by schedules C, D and E did not belong to the estate of the deceased, Syed Akbar Sahib. The claim in the appeal was pressed with reference to the other properties alone. To entitle the appellant to a share in those properties it is necessary to consider whether Syed Akbar Sahibs estate still remains to be administered. To decide that question it is necessary to find whether the alleged partition arrangement of 12-10-1943 is valid and true. The case for the contesting defendants is that about three years after the death of Syed Akbar, his heirs met on 10-7-1943, and agreed that a partition should be effected in respect of the assets left by the deceased. Ex. B. 8 is a record of proceedings of the meeting of four sons and the widow of Syed Akbar Sahib. That is dated 10-7-1943.

The document has been signed by Syed Ahamad and his brothers, namely, plainti