The court upheld that evidence of prior oral partition negates subsequent claims for joint ownership and emphasizes the need for comprehensive evidence when seeking partition in familial disputes.

Order :

Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.30 of 2006 dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Court of Sub Court, Tirupathur, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.210 of 1997 dated 03.04.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirupathu at the instance of the unsuccessful appellant/ unsuccessful plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the suit.

2. The appellant/ plaintiff herein laid a suit in O.S.No.210 of 1997 on the file of the court of District Munsif, Tirupathur against his elder brothers, defendants 1 and 2, and elder sister, the third defendant, seeking partition of the suit scheduled property admeasuring 1 acres 98 cents situated in S.No.136/4 Kathirimangalam, Thirupathur Taluk, into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share admeasuring 0.66 acres to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant/ elder brother of the plaintiff passed away and accordingly, the defendants 4 to 10 were brought on record being the legal representatives of the first defendant/ Srinivasan.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 by name Mrs.Krishnammal was the absolute owner of the suit scheduled property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.03.1936, and on her demise in the year 1982, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 became entitled to equal shares but the third defendant/ daughter of Late Krishnammal gave up her right in the suit scheduled property in favour of her three brothers and thus, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled for equal share in the suit scheduled property. It is also further pleaded that from out of the suit scheduled property, admeasuring 1 acre 98 cents, an extent of 14 cents was in occupation and possession of the second defendant with the consent of late Krishnammal and he has constructed a house over the said extent of land. Thus, the plaintiff claimed for partition of the suit scheduled property into three equal shares and allotment one-third in his favour.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants 4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant, by filing a written statement. The defendants 4 to 7 contended that Late Krishnammal is having right only over an extent of 1 acre 21 cents but not in respect of 1.98 cents, as the remaining land is owned by one person by name Ramasami. It is also further pleaded that in addition to the said extent of 1.21 acres in S.No.136/4, Late Krishnammal also possessed other lands admeasuring 0.69 acres in S.No.135/3B and an extent of 0.70 cents in S.No.139/4. They also admitted about the land admeasuring 0.14 acres being in possession of the second defendant in S.No.136/4 and the permission accorded by Late Krishnammal. However, the defendants 4 to 7 took a specific stand that there was an oral partition in the year 1960 among the plaintiff and the defendant 1 to 3, and in the said oral partition, the land situated in S.No.135/3B was allotted to the plaintiff, while the land situated in S.No.135/4 was allotted to the second defendant, and the suit land admeasuring 1.21 acres in S.No.136/4 was allotted to the first defendant, considering his contribution to the family, including performing the marriage of the third defendant and the loan that was agreed to be cleared by the first defendant availed for imparting Teacher Training course to the plaintiff etc. Thus, in short, the defence of the defendants 4 to 10, who are contestin