A. SELVAM, J.

1. The judgment and decree dated 28.3.2014, passed in O.S. No. 36 of 2011, by the Additional District Court, Namakkal, are being challenged in the present Appeal Suit.

2. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted O.S. No. 36 of 2011, on the file of the trial Court, praying to pass a preliminary decree of partition in respect of his half share in the suit property, wherein, the second respondent and the present appellants have been arrayed as defendants.

3. The material averments made in the plaint are that the suit property is the absolute property of one Papathiammal, who is none other than the mother of the plaintiff and first defendant and she purchased the same by virtue of sale deed dated 02.09.2002 and since then she resided in the same. On 20.11.2006, she voluntarily executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff and first defendant and thereby settled the suit property in their favour. Since the first defendant has executed sale deeds in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 and since he is not amenable for partition, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought therein.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the first defendant it is averred to the effect that the suit property is the absolute property of Papathiammal and she purchased the same by virtue of Sale deed dated 02.09.2002 and during her life time, an oral partition has been effected between the plaintiff and first defendant and in order to confirm the oral partition, a partition chit has come into existence on 25.11.2003. Since in respect of suit property, already partition has been effected, the present suit is not legally maintainable and therefore, the present suit deserves to be dismissed.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 2 to 4 it is averred to the effect that the first defendant has sold his share in the suit property in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 and they are bona-fide purchasers for value and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present Appeal Suit has been preferred at the instance of the defendants 2 to 4, as appellants.

7. The consistent case put forth on the side of the plaintiff is that the suit property is the absolute property of Papathiammal, who is none other than the mother of the plaintiff and first defendant and she purchased the same by virtue of sale deed dated 02.09.2002 and during her life time, she voluntarily executed a registered settlement deed dated 20.11.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and first defendant and thereby, settled the entire suit property in their favour. Since the first defendant is not amenable for having amicable partition and also sold a portion of the suit property in favour of the defendants 2 to 4, the present suit has been instituted.

8. The defence taken on the side of the first defendant is that during life time of Papathiammal, an oral partition has been effected between the plaintiff and first defendant and in order to confirm the same, a partition chit has come into existence on 25.11.2003 and since an oral partition has already been effected between the plaintiff and first defendant, the present suit for partition is not legally maintainable and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.

9. As mentioned supra, the trial Court, after analysing the available evidence on record, has decreed the suit as prayed for.

10. The only point which has to be decided in the present appeal suit is as to whether the alleged oral partition pleaded on the side of the first defendant can be accepted.

11. It is an admitted fact that the suit property is the absolute property of Papathiammal and she purchased the same by virtue of sale dee