The validity of oral partition and the acquisition of shares through a sale deed are crucial in determining property rights in a family dispute.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2001 passed in A.S.No.165 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur confirming/modifying the judgement and decree dated 18.08.1994 passed in O.S.No.477/1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayangondam.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the judgments of the Courts below are sustainable in the absence of any finding with reference to family partition and the allotment of share of to Palanivel to an extent of 95 cents which he has already sold, still he is entitled to get eighty cents which he has sold to the respondent/defendant.

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. From the materials placed on record, it is found that Sengamuthu Padayachi had four sons namely the plaintiff, Govindhasamy, Vadivel and Palanivel. Vadivel had died in the year 1969 and he is succeeded by his wife Manonmani ammal. No issue was born to them. According to the plaintiff, Manonmani ammal had obtained certain properties and executed the release deed in respect of the said properties and accordingly it is purtforth by the plaintiff that the family properties came to be divided amongst the remaining three sons namely the plaintiff, Govindhasami and Palanivel and accordingly various properties were allotted to the abovesaid three sons. It is also stated that the father had not been allotted any property and it is further putforth by the plaintiff that subsequently, in respect of the properties left undivided in survey No.214/4 – 99 cents, Survey No.214/5 – 92 cents and survey No.214/10 - 52 cents totally measuring 2 acres and 43 cents, according to the plaintiff in the oral partition effected amongst the abovesaid three items, the northern share measuring 1.21 ½ extent was allotted to Govindhasamy and southern share measuring 1.21 ½ acres has been allotted to the plaintiff and it is stated that in the abovesaid three items of the properties, the brother Palanivel had not been allotted any share and instead, he had been entrusted the other properties and accordingly claiming that the suit properties had been allotted to the plaintiff as abovestated and further putforth the case that the defendant has no right to the suit properties, accordingly the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff against the defendant for appropriate reliefs.

6. The defendant has disputed the alleged partition said to have been effected between the plaintiff and the brother Govindhasamy in respect of the three items of properties comprised in survey Nos.214/4, 214/5, and 214/10 as alleged in the plaint. According to the defendant, the aboveasid survey numbers and the properties comprised therein had been divided amongst the three brothers namely the plaintiff, Govindhasamy and Palanivel and according to him, Palanivel was allotted to 0.31 ½ ares , the plaintiff was allotted to 0.35.9 ares and Govindhasamy was allotted 0.32.0 ares and in the resurvey, Gonvindhasamy share was comprised in survey No.214/A, the plaintiff's share was comprised in survey Nos.214/4B and 214/5A and Palanivel's share was comprised in survey No.214/5B and 214/10A and according to the defendant, he had acquired the share of Palanivel by way of a sale deed dated 26.06.1989 and enjoying the same and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right to the same and sought for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

7. Based on the materials placed on record and the appreciation of the same, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. However, the first appellate court though had confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, modified the same to a certain exte