The 3rd defendant is O.S.No.3 of 2007 is the appellant. It is a suit for partition, where the plaintiff claimed ¼th share in the A and C-schedule properties and half share in the B-schedule properties with a direction to the 3rd defendant to render true and correct account of the suit A and B schedule properties.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties belong to the joint family of the defendants 1 to 3. The 1st defendant is the father of the defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff is the son of the 3rd defendant. In a partition that took place on 15.11.1985 between the defendants 1 to 3, the suit B and D schedule properties were exclusively allotted to the 3rd defendant. In so far as C-schedule property is concerned, the 1st defendant was given life interest and after his life time, the 2nd and 3rd defendants will take the C-schedule properties equally. The other property in which life interest was given to the 1st defendant was to be taken by the 2nd defendant absolutely. The 3rd defendant married plaintiff's mother Radhika in the year 1984 and the plaintiff was born out of the wedlock on 06.12.1984.

3. The 3rd defendant started living leading a wayward life and started ill treating the plaintiff and his mother. In August 2005, the 3rd defendant left the plaintiff and his mother and started living at Sellakuttipalayam, Bhavani Taluk. Despite the request by the plaintiff's mother, the 3rd defendant refused to live with the plaintiff's mother. Accusing the 3rd defendant of desertion, the plaintiff has sought for partition.

4. The original suit was filed claiming half share in B and D schedule properties and the 3rd defendant filed his written statement contending that he already sold the D-schedule property on 14.09.1993. The plaintiff after having verified the records, found that the suit A-schedule property was purchased out of the sale proceeds of suit D-schedule properties. Therefore, the plaint was amended seeking ¼th share in the suit A-schedule properties also. The 3rd defendant, who contested the suit filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 2. He has claimed that in July 2005, there was actually an oral family arrangement between the plaintiff and his mother and the 3rd defendant. At the instance of well wishers of the family, there has been a complete partition of the properties by metes and bounds. The 3rd defendant would claim that certain suit properties were allotted to him and certain suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff also. He would also claim that certain amounts were paid in lump sum towards maintenance of the plaintiff's mother as well as the plaintiff. On the above allegations, the 3rd defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit. An additional written statement was also filed by the 3rd defendant after the amendment of the plaint seeking share in the A-schedule properties. The learned Trial Judge upon a consideration of pleadings, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition?

2. Whether the 3rd defendant is bound to account for the income from the Suit A and B schedule properties?

3. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The 3rd defendant was examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

6. Considering the above oral and documentary evidence as well as the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, the learned Trial Judge concluded that the defendants have not established the alleged oral partition pleaded by them and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition as prayed for.

7. Aggrieved 3rd defendant has filed the above appeal. It is not in dispute that the 1st defendant died pending suit and the life interest granted in his favour came to an end.

8. I have heard Mr. Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Rajesh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Naveenkumar Murthy, the learned counsel