The burden of proof regarding partition, the reliance on revenue records and patta, and the presumption of joint-ness in the absence of proof of partition were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against thejudgment and decree dated 15.02.2008 made in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cheyyar, Thiruvennamalai District reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006 made in O.S.No.121 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Vandavasi).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2008 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006 passed in O.S. No. 121 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 121 of 2003 are the appellants in this second appeal.

3. Suit for partition.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and the defendant's grandfather Muthuramalinga Thambiran and enjoyed by him and after his death, enjoyed by the plaintiffs' father and the defendant's father jointly and whileso, the plaintiffs had gone out of the suit village for eking out their livelihood and taking advantage of the same, the defendant endeavored to claim the entire right over the suit property without any basis. The plaintiffs and the defendant each have 1/5th share in the suit property and claiming partition, the first plaintiff issued a notice on 21.03.2003 and it was duly acknowledged by the defendant and he sent a reply on 23.04.2003 containing false allegations. Though Panchayat was convened, the defendant has failed to effect the partition and handover the due shares to the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiff's have been necessitated to levy the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that it is true that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiffs' and the defendant's grandfather Muthramalinga Thambiran, however false to state that after his death, the suit property was enjoyed by the plaintiffs and the defendant's father jointly. According to the defendant, the defendant's father and the first plaintiff's father had equally divided the suit property and enjoyed their respective shares separately and each enjoyed 2 ½ cents respectively and therefore it is false to state that the plaintiffs and the defendant had been jointly enjoying the suit property. While so, the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 settled in various other villages permanently prior to 40 years and therefore having no right to claim their shares in the suit property. The defendant's father had constructed a thatched house in the suit property and after his death, the defendant had put up a terraced house and patta had also been issued in favour of the defendant and he has been enjoying the property by paying house tax etc., It is only the first plaintiff's father and the defendant's father who had been enjoying their respective shares as abovestated and Muthuramalinga Thambiran during his life time had equally divided the suit property between the first plaintiff's father and the defendant's father and even when the first plaintiff left to another village, it is only the defendant who had been cultivating the suit property and when the defendant claimed his share in the same, the first plaintiff has filed the present suit by instigating the other plaintiffs. No Panchayath was convened as alleged in the plaint. The defendant sent a suitable reply to the notice issued by the first plaintiff and therefore, according to the defendant, there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 to 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.B1 to B19 were marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions pu