The court upheld the validity of the release and exchange deeds and accepted the oral arrangement in respect of the house property, emphasizing the importance of proving the existence of an oral arrangement and the proper consideration of relevant documents.

The first defendant, who lost the legal battle before the trial Court has come forward with this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.1994 made in O.S.No.78 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

2. The respondents 1 to 3, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in item 1 to 4 of the suit properties along with the 2nd defendant/4th respondent herein stating that the suit properties are originally belong to one Fackir Mohammed, who is none other than the father of first defendant/appellant and one Abdul Majid. The first plaintiff is the wife of Abdul Majid and their children are the second and third plaintiffs and the second defendant. The father of the first defendant and Abdul Majid viz. T.A.Fackir Mohammed Saheb had executed a registered settlement deed dated 14.07.1968, in which, ‘A’ schedule properties were allotted to the first defendant and Abdul Majid. So they are entitled 1/2 share in the suit properties. They have not effected partition between them by metes and bounds. Even after the death of Abdul Majid on 03.05.1991, the suit property is being possessed and enjoyed in common by both the plaintiffs and defendants.

3. As per the settlement deed, the legal heir of Abdul Majid is entitled 1/2 share in the property. Abdul Majid was suffering some ailments and he was in a helpless situation and he had lot of noudles over his face and body and hence, the first defendant obtained documents from him by fraud. Therefore, the plaintiffs and the second defendant have filed separate suits for setting aside the release and exchange deeds obtained by the first defendant and the suit is pending in O.S.No.249 of 1991 before the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The plaintiffs filed another suit with reference to the partnership firm called as ‘R.S.Emporium’, which is also pending. When the plaintiffs demanded orally a partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds and dividing separate properties for their half share in the suit properties, the same has not been complied with by the first defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties.

4. Resisting the same, the first defendant/appellant has filed a detailed a written statement stating that the execution of settlement deed is accepted. At the time of execution of settlement deed, the old house existed in T.S.No.865, which was in dilapidated condition was pulled down and a pucca terraced structure has been constructed by the first defendant with the consent and knowledge of his deceased brother Abdul Majid. In the said house, door number has been assigned as door No.27/865. In or about 1975, there was an oral arrangement, in which, the first defendant and Abul Majid agreed that the eastern half of T.S.No.865 could be taken by the first defendant as his share and the remaining western half could be taken by Adbul Majid. Similarly, Abdul Majid had orally relinquished his share in T.S.No.864, viz., the second item of suit property, in lieu of about 2300 sq. ft. given by the first defendant in T.S.No.863, viz., the fourth item of suit property.

5. In fact, only in accordance with this oral arrangement, the parties have been in their respective enjoyment. Only after the oral arrangement, Abdul Majid put up his own structure in his western portion in T.S.No.865 in 1976, which was assigned door No. 27A/865. Consistent with this oral arrangement and the subsequent conduct, the deceased Abdul Majid has executed the release deed dated 14.03.1991, which is valid. In view of the oral arrangement, the plaintiffs are entitled in addition to their half share to an area of about 2300 sq. ft in lieu of their share in second item of suit property. The first defendant has no objection to his being allotted half share in fourth item of suit property less 2300 sq. ft. As third item of suit property, the first defendant is entitled to moiety. The