IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove oral partition in property disputes and the implications of relying on the defendant's statement. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and proper documentation and evidence are crucial in establishing claims of partition.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2022 made in AS.No.56 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 made in OS.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Court, Uthangarai.)

1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court on appeal. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2022 in AS.No.56 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 in OS.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property along with other property are Government Tharisu lands. The plaintiff's grandfather Subramanya Gounder leveled the lands and carried on cultivation and had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff and his grandfather Subramanya Gounder without any intervention or disturbance of any of the parties had been carrying on cultivation. Subramanya Gounder had five sons namely Thandapani, Natarajan, Ravi, Rajendran and Pugalendhi apart from three daughters Chenammal, Sakunthala and Suseela.

4. According to the plaintiff, Subramanya Gounder by way of oral partition has given the properties to all his eight children. Through the oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the three female children i.e daughters as joint family property. From there on, three sisters had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties and based on which a joint patta had been issued in the name of three sisters in Ex.A.1. The plaintiff's mother Chenammal along with her two sisters executed the registered partition deed dated 23.11.2016 in Ex.A.2 in which the suit property was allotted as 'A' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff's mother. The plaintiff's mother had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and thereafter by a settlement deed dated 16.12.2016 had settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in Ex.A.3. The plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the defendant attempted to interfere with the possession of the suit property, he had issued a legal notice on 09.02.2017 and also had lodged a complaint to the Singarai Police Station on 21.06.2017 which was received in CSR.No.223 of 2017. Since the defendant continued to interfere with the enjoyment of the plaintiff, he had come up with the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

5. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement denying that there was any oral partition as claimed by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in fact, the major portion of the schedule property is used as cemetery and tomb of defendant's ancestors. The plaintiff's mother and her sisters, with an intention to grab the property, had executed a partition deed in Ex.A.2 without any right only to defeat the rights of the defendant and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed documents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and examined one Chinnasamy and Krishnamoorthy as DW.2 and DW.3 and marked Ex.B1 and B2.

7. The Trial court, after appreciating the evidence and documents by judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 dismissed the suit. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff has not proved the oral partition and also found that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed appeal in AS.No.56 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, and the Lower Appellate Court, after reappraising the evidence, allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit so far as the declarati