The burden of proof lies on defendants in property disputes involving claimed oral partitions; failure to adequately prove exclusive entitlement resulted in dismissing their claims.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendants, initially having succeeded before the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court having been reversed by the First Appellate Court, are the appellants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts that are necessary for deciding the present second appeal, briefly:

Pleadings:

The Plaint in brief::

3.1. The suit property and adjacent northern side property measuring 20 feet by 60 feet originally belonged to Ramanatha Thevar. After the demise of Ramanatha Thevar, his sons Chella Thevar and Arumuga Thevar became entitled to the same. Chella Thevar had two wives, viz., Rakkammal (first wife) and Irulayee (second wife). Through the first wife, Chella Thevar was blessed with a son Samidurai and a daughter Lakshmi. Samidurai was in turn blessed with Ambika (first plaintiff), Porkodi, Chitra, Murugan and Karikalan. Murugan passed away in the year 2000 leaving behind his wife Muthunatchiyar and children Pookumar and Ajith.

3.2. After the demise of Ramanatha Thevar, his sons, Chella Thevar and Arumuga Thevar, partitioned the property into two equal ½ and northern ½ being allotted to Arumuga Thevar and southern ½ being allotted to Chella Thevar. The son of Chella Thevar, Samidurai filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.42 of 1977 in respect of the southern ½ allotted to Chella Thevar. A preliminary decree came to be passed on 28.02.1978 and subsequently a final decree was also passed. Chella Thevar executed a Will on 31.10.1988, bequeathing his properties to his daughter, Lakshmi and subsequent to the demise of Chella Thevar, Lakshmi has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bequeathed to her. After the demise of Samidurai, in respect of the properties allotted to Samidurai in the partition in an by a Family arrangement, the legal heirs of Samidurai have amicably divided the property.

3.3. The plaintiff has purchased the share of Lakshmi as well as the share of Murugan from his legal heirs by registered sale deeds dated 25.01.2006 and 12.10.2007 respectively. There was a thatched house in the suit property, which collapsed due to heavy rains. When the plaintiff attempted to reconstruct the same, the defendant objected, contending that he was the owner of the property and that the plaintiff had no right over it. Hence, the suit.

4. Written statement filed by the defendant in brief:

The property measuring 60 feet and 30 feet was originally belonging to Ramanatha Thevar. Though there was a partition after the demise of Ramanatha Thevar, between his two sons, viz., Chella Thevar and Arumuga Thevar about 50 years back, in the said partition, the entire property was allotted to the share of the defendant Arumuga Thevar and it is the defendant, who has been in possession of the same. The defendant denies the allegation that the plaintiff is in possession and also contended that in respect of survey No.608/2, the lands were assigned in favour of the defendant and patta was also issued wayback in the year 1992 and lands in survey No.608/1, alongwith survey No.608/2 have been in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the defendant for the past several decades. The defendant denies the entitlement of the plaintiff and contends that the sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff were not valid, and cannot rely upon the same to assert his title. The defendant therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Issues framed by the trial Court:

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following