JAGANNATHAN Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of injunction.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the suit property and other properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, his father and brother and in an oral partition that took place 20 years ago, prior to the filing of the suit, the suit properties and two other properties were allotted to the share of the respondent/plaintiff and patta was also granted to him in patta No.609 and for the past 20 years, he is enjoying the property and the appellant/defendant on the basis of a document claimed title to the suit property as if, it belonged to the plaintiff's father and brother and the suit property was allotted to them under the oral partition and they sold the same to the appellant and on the basis of the said sale deed, the appellant/defendant also changed the patta in his name without notice to the respondent/plaintiff and attempted to interfere with the respondent/plaintiff's possession. THErefore, the suit was filed for the relief stated above.

(3.) MR.J.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the respondent has stated that in the oral partition that took place 20 years, prior to the filing of the suit, the suit property was allotted to his share, he did not state what are the other properties allotted to his share in the said oral partition and the revenue records will not prove his possession and enjoyment and taking advantage of the close relationship between the parties, he changed the patta in his name and that will not confer any title to the respondent/plaintiff and the father of the respondent/plaintiff was examined as D.W.2, and he has also given evidence that in the oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of his son MR.Thiagarajan, and the respondent/plaintiff was not allotted any share and without considering the evidence of D.W.2, who is competent to speak about the oral partition, the Courts below decreed the suit. The learned counsel further submitted that the Courts below erroneously placed the burden of proof on the appellant and decreed the suit holding that the appellant has not proved that the suit property was allotted to his share in the oral partition, without considering the evidence of D.W.2, the father of the respondent/plaintiff.