JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants.

2. The plaint schedule property belonged to Andruman, the father of plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4. First defendant was the wife of Andruman who died pending suit. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are entitled to 2/9^th share in the plaint schedule property. Defendants 2 to 4 contested the suit contending, among others, that on the death of Andruman the plaint schedule property was partitioned orally among his legal representatives; that the plaint schedule property was allotted to defendants 2 to 4 as per terms of the said oral partition and that the plaintiffs have no right in the plaint schedule property. They have also contended that pursuant to the said oral partition, the plaint schedule property was sold by them to the fifth defendant.

3. Despite the contentions aforesaid, both sides have not adduced any oral evidence. The defendants, however, produced five documents which were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. The trial court accepted the case of oral partition set up by defendants 2 to 4 and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellat