JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2016 passed in O.S.No. 234 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.)

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.234 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai. The respondents 2 to 5 are the defendants 2 to 5 in the suit. The suit was filed for partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.

2. In the following paragraphs the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

3. The plaintiff is the grand-daughter of Perumal Asari. Her mother Renganayaki Ammal, who is the daughter of Perumal Asari died and after her death, she has filed the suit seeking for partition of her mother''s share out of which she is entitled for 1/6th share each along with her brother, who is the fifth respondent/fifth defendant in the suit. The plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that though her mother during her life time was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, she was deprived of the same by her uncles namely Chockalinga Asari and Nallathambi Asari.

4. However, the contesting defendants in the suit denied the plaintiff''s claim for partition on the ground that Nallathambi Asari and Chockalinga Asari have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since the death of Perumal Asari. According to them, there was an oral partition between Perumal Asari, their father and Chockalinga Asari and Nallathambi Asari and therefore, the plaintiff does not have any right over the suit schedule property and further, she has been ousted on account of the long lapse of time.

5. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed 4 documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. The plaintiff was also examined as witness (P.W.1). On the side of the defendants, no documents were filed. Nallathambi Asari, the first defendant was examined as witness (D.W.1).

6. After framing issues and based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court has held that the oral partition pleaded by the defendants in the suit has not been proved through any oral and documentary evidence. The trial court has also taken note of the fact that the revenue records namely Ex.A.1 dated 06.07.2010 also stands in the name of Perumal Asari, the grand-father of the plaintiff and the father of Chockalinga Asari and Nallathambi Asari. The trial court has also held that the plaintiff has discharged her burden of establishing her right over the suit schedule property i.e her right to claim 1/6th share in the same, based on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4, which were marked as exhibits on her side.

7. Though the contesting defendants contended that the plaintiff has been ousted from claiming any right in respect of the suit schedule property on account of the oral partition effected between Perumal Asari and his sons Chockalinga Asari and Nallathambi Asari, they have not filed any documentary evidence before the trial court either in the form of a document confirming oral partition or through revenue records standing in their names. Admittedly, the only revenue record available on record is Ex.A.1 and the same also stands only in the name of Perumal Asari, deceased from whom the plaintiff as well as the contesting defendants derive rights over the suit schedule property. While that be so, when the plaintiff has discharged her burden as per the provisions of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act that she is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule property by filing documentary evidence and also letting-in oral evidence, it is for the defendants to disprove the same if they claim that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the