The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence, such as the Partition Deed, in establishing property rights. It also highlights the requirement for substantiating claims, such as adverse possession, with necessary documentation and proof.

1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.2.1996 in A.S.No.49 of 1992 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.

2. The First Appellate Court viz., the learned Sub-Judge, Ariyalur in the Judgment in A.S.No.49 of 1992 dated 13.2.1996 has among other things observed that “the suit properties have been allotted to the share of Ramasamy who has been in enjoyment of the same and after him, the suit properties have been in enjoyment of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and in respect of 1,2 and 3 items of the properties, the Appellant/defendant has been in enjoyment for 4 years and 2 years as a trespasser and therefore the Appellant has no right to question as to how Ramasamy and his heirs are enjoying the properties.

3. Further, the First Appellate Court has also opined that during his lifetime, Ramasamy has divided his properties into 3 shares and as per Ex.A.1, the sisters have partitioned the same and in the said partition, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has been allotted the suit property and since it is not stated that apart from three daughters Ramasamy has no other heirs after the demise of Ramasamy, his 3 daughters get these properties and accordingly, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) gets the right and the Appellant/Defendant has no right to say that as per Ex.A.1 during the lifetime of Ramasamy his daughters has no right to partition his properties” and resultantly dismissed the Appeal with costs. Also, the First Appellate Court viz., the learned Sub-Judge, Ariyalur has granted one month time to the Appellant/Defendant to hand over the possession of the suit properties.

4. Before the Trial Court 1 to 6 issues have been framed for determination. On the side of 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased), witnesses P.W.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.43 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, D.W.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 have been marked.

5. The Trial Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to the resultant conclusion that the suit properties have been allotted to the Plaintiff’s father-Ramasamy’s share and the suit properties have been allotted to the share of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) as per Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973 and these have been proved by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and the Appellant/Defendant has not established that the suit properties have been allotted to his father’s share and later he has been in enjoyment of the same and resultantly decreed the Suit as prayed for by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased).

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Question of Law has been framed by this Court.

“Whether the Courts below were correct in granting a decree in favour of the Plaintiff on the basis of the Partition Deed dated 12.3.1973?”

7. The Contentions, Discussions and findings on Substantial Question of Law:

According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the First Appellate Court has not appreciated Ex.A.10-House Kist Receipt which cannot convey a right to the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) and moreover, the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) has not explained the reason for the execution of Ex.A.1-Partion Deed dated 12.3.1973.

8. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/Defendant that Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 clearly go to prove that Item No.1 and 2 are in possession of the Appellant/Defendant.

9. Advancing his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the First Appellate Court should not have given any credence to the documents filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) including Ex.A.2-Settlement copy dated 28.8.1990 issued by the Tahsildar.

10. Proceeding further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant contends that it is the specific case of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff (deceased) t