The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of admissions as a form of proof, the onus of proof on the parties, and the requirement for clear and unambiguous evidence to establish oral partition and mutation of property rights.

P. DEVADASS, J.

1. This is defendants appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff and 1st appellant 1st defendants are brothers and appellants 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 are their sisters. Their parents are Govindan and Kaliammal. The respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 596 of 2004 as against the appellants, seeking partition with respect to two items of properties.

3. It is alleged in the plaint that suit item No. 1 has been assigned to their father Govindan by the Government and it has become their family property and suit 2nd item belongs to their mother Kaliammal. Thus the plaintiff sought for his 1/4 share in both the items.

4. The suit has been resisted by the defendants by a filing written statement. According to them, suit 1st item was assigned by the Government in favour of the 1st defendant, it was sold by him to the 2nd defendant under Ex.A.2 sale deed. Thus, in the 1st item, plaintiff is not entitle to any share. As regards suit 2nd item, the defendants pleaded that after the death of their mother, by an oral partition, 37 cents of property has been equally divided between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. Plaintiff was allotted the house property bearing door No. 61/1 together with the vacant land and the suit 2nd item was allotted to the share of 1st defendant. Thus, in the 2nd item also, plaintiff cannot seek any share.

5. On the divergent pleadings, the trial Court/Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur framed the issues, tried the suit. Plaintiff Ramasamy examined himself as P.W.1 and his relative Alagumalai as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A.1 to A.6, while the defendants have examined 1st defendant Ramasamy as D.W.1 and 2nd defendant's husband Sathuragiri as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.

6. Appreciating the arguments of both, analyzing the said evidence, with respect to item No. 1, trial Court came to the conclusion that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have proved their respective cases and with respect to 2nd item, the defendants have not established that it was already divided at an oral partition, thus, decreed the suit with respect to suit 2nd item granting 1/4 share to the plaintiff and dismissed the suit with respect to suit 1st item.

7. The defendants have directed the first appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2008, before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, while plaintiff preferred cross-appeal as against the dismissal of the suit with respect to 1st item.

8. The 1st appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established that the suit 1st item is their family property and suit 2nd item is their mother's property, thus, in both items plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share. Thus, allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal and dismissed the defendants main appeal.

9. In the circumstances, the defendants have come forward with this Second Appeal.

10. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal the then learned brother framed the following substantial questions of law:-

"A. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court in respect of first item of suit schedule property and thereby passed a preliminary decree in respect of first schedule property alone, when the respondent has not produced any document to prove that the suit first scheduled property belongs to their father and hence the same is without any material evidence is liable to be set aside by this Court?

B. Whether, the courts below are right in giving a finding that oral partition made in respect of suit second scheduled property and other properties was not proved by the appellant when Exs.B.2, Ex.B.3 clearly proves that mutation has been effected on the basis of oral partition and the same amounts to non-consideration of vital evidence and hence warrants interference by this Court."

11. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the basic principle is that the parties to a suit have to prove their respective cases.