An unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in evidence to prove a partition, but a party can be estopped from denying a partition despite the inadmissibility of the partition deed if there is an admission of the partition in a registered document or other evidence of estoppel.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. 128 of 1975, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi are the appellants herein. The first respondent in the appeal is the plaintiff, while the third defendant in the suit is the second respondent.

2. The first respondent brought O.S. 128 of 1975 for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. The suit property measures 63 cents comprised in S. No. 14/3 in Kodivayal village Aranthangi taluk, Pudukottai Dt. The first respondent traced his title through Chidambaram Chettiar, Janaki and Rajamani Achi, who according to him obtained the suit property in an oral partition between Vaithilingam Chettiars family and 3rd defendant. He claims to have purchased the suit property under Ex. A1 dated 25th June, 1970. Besides the oral partition referred to, according to the plaintiff, there were two earlier partitions borne out by Ex. A8 dated 17th June, 1983 and A.9 dated 31st March, 1957. Both these documents are unregistered ones.

3. Appellants 1 and 2 are father and son. Their defences were two fold. The appellants had perfected title by adverse possession in respect of the suit property. The title in

Chidambaram Chettiar, Sockayi and third defendant in respect of the suit property is denied. In respect of 4 cents in the suit property, the appellants were granted Kudiyiruppu patta.

4. The third defendant remained ex parte.

5. Both the Courts below negatived the appellants claim of adverse possession. They relied upon Ex. A5 in which these partitions are admitted by the first appellant; besides they accepted the oral partition between Vaidhilingam Chettiars branch and consequently upheld the first respondents title to the suit property. It is needless to state that the decree passed by the trial court for declaration and possession excluding 4 cents in respect of which Kudiyiruppu patta was granted to the appellants was affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, in A.S. 24 of 1979 preferred by the appellants herein.

6. The substantial question formulated at the time of admission of the appeal is-

“When the plaintiff sues for claiming that he obtained it unstamped and unregistered, particular item to the plaintiff recovery of possession of a under a partition and the can they be relied upon to specific item of property alleged partition lists are show the allotment of the

7. Mr. Yamunan, learned counsel for the appellants did not argue the point relating to adverse possession obviously aware of the legal impediments in his way that there is a concurrent finding by both the courts below on this matter. Even otherwise, I find, the documentary evidence admittedly relied on by the appellants start from the year 1968. The oral testimony of the defence witnesses were disbelieved by both the Courts below. When there is no documentary evidence, the courts below were justified in negativing the appellants claim in this behalf. Thus, the defence on the strength of adverse possession falls to the ground.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants was emphatic in his submission when be pointed out that both the Courts below erred in relying upon Ex. A9, dated 31st March, 1957, an unregistered partition deed. According to the learned counsel, both the Courts below found that under Ex. A.9, the partition is created for the first time and that therefore, it is inadmissible evidence, but nonetheless relied upon the said partition and consequently, they fell into a grave error on a point of law. Incidentally, the learned counsel relied upon the description of the properties in Ex. A1, dated 25th June, 1970 and laid stress particularly on the Tamil expression Ex. A11 was also pressed into service to point out that what was settled by Sokayi Achi in favour of her daughter is the entire extent of 63 cents and that would negative the case of partition relied on by the first respondent. In support of his argument, the learned counsel brought to my notice Ramayya v.

Achamma