The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, and failure to provide evidence to support the claim can result in the claim being rejected.

The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.5 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.NO.14 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aruppukkottai.

2. The defendant is the appellant and the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.14 of 2004 for partition.

3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged jointly to him and the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The suit property originally belonged to one Soundammal. The said Soundammal sold the property to the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant viz., Meenammal and her sister Mallammal on 23.10.1961. After 35 years, the said Meenammal and Mallammal partitioned the property and the portion on the eastern side was allotted to Mallammal and the portion on the western side was allotted to Meenammal the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant. Originally the property was a vacant land.

(ii) On 19.05.1999, the plaintiff and the defendant purchased the suit property from Mallammal out of their own funds. Subsequently, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant had died. The said Meenammal had five children and her husband had predeceased her. On 19.05.1999, the two sons and the daughter of Meenammal executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant. On 20.09.1999, the plaintiff and the defendant obtained planning permission for constructing a house in the suit property. It was agreed between them that the expenses for constructing a house should be shared equally between them. After completing the construction, they have also celebrated the house-warming ceremony. The property was in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendant. The southern portion of the house property was in the possession of the plaintiff and the northern portion was in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff also obtained ration card mentioning the said address. He also obtained telephone connection in the said address. The plaintiff is entitled to undivided 1/2 share in the suit property. The property was not partitioned between them.

(iii) On 24.12.2003, the plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice to the defendant. On 13.01.2004, the defendant sent a reply through his advocate. In the reply, the defendant averred that in the year 1999, the entire suit property was allotted in his favour. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition.

4. The brief case of the defendant is as follows: According to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the suit property. In the month of June 1999, there was a oral partition between the plaintiff and the defendant and the suit property was allotted to him. The plaintiff had suppressed the oral partition. After the oral partition in the year 1999, the plaintiff had no right or title in the suit property. The plaintiff was not residing in the suit property. The defendant celebrated the house-warming ceremony on 21.11.1999. In order to give respect to the family members, the defendant had mentioned the names of all the family members in the invitation. The planning permission was not jointly obtained by the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff did not pay any amount for the construction of the house. The plaintiff was not paying the house tax. The plaintiff is not entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property. In these circumstances, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and 8 documents EXs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On the side of the defendant, four witnesses were examined and 21 documents Exs.B.1 to B.21 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner's report and the plan were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. The witness exh