The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in establishing an oral partition. The court emphasized the importance of evidence of separate possession, utilization of income, separate loans, and documentary evidence in proving the oral partition, and considered the plaintiff's admission in writing as a significant piece of evidence.

Aggrieved over the granting of preliminary decree in respect of item Nos. 1 to 8 the present appeal came to be filed by the defendant. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

2. Brief facts are as follows:-

The plaintiff and defendant are brothers and sons of Bairappa Gounder. The suit properties were originally owned by Muniappa Gounder, maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant. The said Muniappa Gounder gifted the suit properties to the plaintiff and defendant and handed over the possession of the same. Ever since the date of gift, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Joint patta was also issued in favour of the defendant in patta No.1128 in respect of the properties comprised in S.Nos. 1263, 1264, 1265 and 1284. But with some ulterior motive, behind the back of plaintiff, the defendant has obtained separate patta in patta No.522 in respect of properties in S.No.1486, 1488/1, 1488/2 and 1488/3 of Puligunda Village and also in patta No.581 for the properties in S.No.327 of Mahagevagoollahalli Village. The plaintiff came to know about the said pattas only 6 months prior to the filing of the suit. Similarly, joint patta was issued in respect of the properties in S.No.493/2E, 499/2 and 615/2 of Chinnamattrapalli Village. But the defendant has obtained separate patta for the property in S.No.574/6 of Chinnamattarapalli Village in patta No.352, behind the back of plaintiff, despite the fact that the properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of both of them. There was no partition effected between them till the date of filing of the suit. Availing loan from the Krishnagiri Cooperative Housing Society in the year 1994, a new house was built in Thogarapalli Village for the plaintiff. The defendant by managing the land in S.No.1264, to an extent of 1.47.5 Hectare, asked the plaintiff to reside in the house comprised in the gift settlement deed and the defendant is residing in the said new house. Since there was no partition between the parties, the present suit is filed.

3. Admitting the relationship between the parties, it is the contention of the defendant that items 6 to 8 of the suit schedule properties do not belong to the family of the plaintiff and defendant, whereas the property belonged to one Koothappa Gounder and his children. Item No.10 of the suit property was absolute property of the defendant. It is the contention of the defendant that in the year 1981 there was a oral partition between the plaintiff and the defendant in and by which an extent of 1.86.0 Hectares of land in S.No.1263 situate in Pulikunda, 1.86.5 Hectares of land in S.No.327 situate in Mahadeva kollahapalli, 0.01.5 Hectares of land in S.No.493/E, 0.96.0 Hectares of land in S.No.499/2, 1.76.0 Hectares of land in S.No.615/2, 0.16.5 Hectares of land in S.No.574/6 situate at Chinnamattarapalli total extent of 6.62.5 Hectares of lands together with the ancestral house situated at Thogarapalli, were allotted to the share of plaintiff. Likewise, the lands measuring to an extent of 1.47.5 Hectares in S.No.1264; 2.60.5 Hectares in S.No.1265; 0.59.5 Hectares in S.No.1284; 2.15.5 Hectares in S.No.1486, situate at Pulikunda, totalling 16.87 Acres of lands were allotted to the share of defendant which are shown as items 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the suit schedule. The 10th item in schedule 1 was purchased by the defendant out of his own income. Since the defendant was not given any house property, he has availed loan from the Krishnagiri Cooperative Housing Society and built house. At the time of availing loan the plaintiff has given a statement admitting the oral partition between the parties. In pursuant to the oral partition the plaintiff and defendant are enjoying the suit properties separately. When the matter stood thus, in the year 1994 there was a dispute between the plaintiff and his sons with regard to the sharing of the properties allotted to the plaintiff. The d