JUDGMENT :

V. Parthiban, J.

1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants in the suit as against the judgment and decree, dated 27.03.2013, passed by the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, in A.S. No. 6 of 2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2005, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Hosur, in O.S. No. 322 of 1996, which was one for partition and separate possession.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder, according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs have approached the trial Court by filing O.S. No. 322 of 1996, seeking partition, in respect of various items of properties mentioned in the suit schedules, among them and the defendants, who are the legal heirs of Marappa and Venkataramanappa. On behalf of the plaintiffs, several documents were marked and evidence were let in.

4. The defendants, who happened to be the legal heirs of Venkataramanappa resisted the suit on the ground that during the life time of Marappa and Venkataramanappa, an oral partition had taken place between them some 65 years ago and the same was acted upon and on the basis of the oral partition, the parties have been enjoying the properties apportioned to them and therefore, there was no question of partition at all among the legal heirs of the said Marappa and Venkataramanappa.

5. The trial Court, which extensively went into the evidence and pleadings placed on record, had rendered a categoric finding that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiffs, since the defendants had proved their case of oral partition and the same was also acted upon by the parties. The trial Court has accepted the case of the defendants that 65 years before an oral partition had taken place between the said Marappa and Venkataramanappa and to that effect, there were clear and unambiguous evidence let in on behalf of the defendants and on the basis of the said oral partition, mutation was also effected in the Revenue records and various deeds also emerged in the names of individual legal heirs and hence, the trial Court held that the partition suit laid by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. Moreover, the trial Court has also held that the oral partition had taken place before 1958 and the same was established by material evidence and therefore, the second partition, now claimed by the plaintiffs, was hit by law of limitation. According to the trial Court, the plaintiffs failed to establish that certain items of the properties, which were mentioned in the suit schedules, were excluded from oral partition and further, if it is the case of the plaintiffs that fraud being played in the oral partition, they should have challenged the same within the period of limitation. The trial Court has given extensive finding in regard to each one of the pleas raised on behalf of the plaintiffs and discountenanced all the pleas and found that in all fours the claim of partition was unsustainable both in law and on facts. As against the said dismissal of the suit, the aggrieved plaintiffs filed an appeal, in A.S. No. 6 of 2006, before the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.

6. The lower appellate Court, which dealt with the appeal, has by and large confirmed the factum of oral partition during the life time of Marappa and Venkataramanappa. But, in the operative portion of the judgment, the lower appellate Court has held that some items of the properties, described in the suit schedules, were not part of the oral partition and held that those properties, which were not part of the oral partition, are still open to either partition among the legal heirs or to be held as joint family properties. In the said circumstances, the lower appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent indicated in the operative portion of the judgment in the appeal. Aggrieved by