The main legal point established is that the plaintiff's possession was proved through various documents, and the first defendant had no standing to dispute the partition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.65 of 2006, dated 25.09.2006 on the file of Principal District Court, Thanjavur reversing the decree and judgment of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur in O.S.No.191 of 1999, dated 22.02.2005.)

1. The Second Appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur in A.S.No.65 of 2006, dated 25.09.2006, reversing the decree and judgment passed by the District Munsif, Thanjavur in O.S.No.191 of 1999, dated 22.02.2005.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and he has filed the suit in O.S.No.191 of 1999 before the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The contention of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the suit schedule property was allotted by virtue of the oral partition in the year 1974. Thereafter, the said oral partition was reduced into writing in the year 1976 and the same was marked as Ex.A4. Before the partition, a joint patta was issued for the property in the name of all the four brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has two sisters and no property has been provided for them. At the time of marriage, they have been settled by providing Sridhanas. Therefore, they have also not made any objection for the partition till date. Under such circumstances, the third defendant, who is the son of the first defendant interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff.

4. On the other hand, the defendants have filed a written statement stating that the suit property is not a joint family property and disputed the partition deed/Ex.A4 and other documents filed by the plaintiff. The defendants further stated that they have purchased the suit property subsequent to the filing of the suit under Ex.B12, dated 25.10.1999, from the first defendant''s father''s brother son, who is the second defendant. According to them, the joint family property is the ancestral property. Therefore, no partition has been effected. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the plaint.

5. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A31 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B24 were marked.

6. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for in the plaint and accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred an appeal before the Principal District Court, Thanjavur in A.S.No.65 of 2006. After hearing both the parties, the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit property is a joint family property and though the oral partition was made among the four brothers, two sisters were left out. That apart, the oral partition was reduced into writing in the year of 1976. Though the deposition of P.W.1 that the oral partition was made before the Panchayatar in the year 1974, no details with regard to the time and place have been mentioned in Ex.A4/the partition deed. Therefore, for these reasons, the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2006. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court.

8. When this appeal came up for admission on 16.11.2006, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:

When the appellant has proved his exclusive possession of suit property on the basi