The burden of proof for claims of oral partition lies with the party asserting it, and failure to establish legal ownership results in dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated January 30, 2018 made by the Subordinate Judge, Coonoor' [First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.57 of 2017, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated July 24, 2017 made by the District Munsiff, Coonoor' ['Trial Court' for short] in O.S.No.8 of 2015.

2. The appellant herein is the 1^st defendant, while the respondents 1 & 2 herein are the plaintiffs 1 & 2 and the respondents 3 & 4 herein are the defendants 2 & 3 in O.S.No.8 of 2015 respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to according to their litigative status in the Original Suit.

Case of the plaintiffs in brief:

3. The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff's husband – J. Bhojan and the first defendant are brothers, their father being Jevana Gowder. The suit property is a house property bearing Door No.1/72 situate in Survey No.622/14 of Bettatty Revenue Village. As per the family oral partition held in 1980, the suit property was allotted to the first plaintiff's husband – J. Bhojan. The marriage between J. Bhojan and the first plaintiff was solemnised in September 1988. The 2^nd plaintiff was born on August 2, 1993. After the said oral partition, J. Bhojan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying house tax.

3.1. Bhojan passed away on July 7, 2000 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs to succeed the suit property. After the demise of Bhojan, the plaintiffs were residing in the suit property for some time and thereafter, they shifted to the first plaintiff's maternal house giving permissive possession of the suit property to the first defendant with a condition that the 1^st defendant shall pay house tax regularly in the name of Bhojan. However, the first defendant, being a member of the Jaganthala Panchayat Board, with an ulterior motive to defeat and defraud the plaintiff's rights over the suit property, used his influence to forge a letter in Bhojan's name and changed the House Tax Assessment Records in his own name.

3.2. On January 15, 2012, the first defendant refused to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property upon demand by the 1^st plaintiff. Thereafter, the 1^st plaintiff learnt about the fraudulent mutation in House Tax Assessment records. Hence, the Suit for Declaration of Title, Recovery of Possession and for directing the second and third defendants to transfer the House Tax Assessment Records in the name of plaintiff.

Case of the 1st defendant in brief:

4. According to the first defendant, he acquired right and title over the suit property by virtue of inheritance and succession followed by an inter se oral partition held in the year 1974. His name has been mutated in the revenue records as early as 1999. Since then, he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, the question of permissive possession as claimed by the plaintiffs does not arise at all. Patta also confirms his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. First plaintiff's husband – Bhojan, himself has given a No Objection Letter dated January 8, 1997 with respect to mutating the House Tax Assessment records in the name of first defendant. Accordingly, the first defendant being the absolute owner of the suit property, has been paying House Tax without default. The plaintiffs' suit has no cause of actio