L NARAYANAN Vs. MUNUSWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants/Plaintiffs have focused the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2000 in A.S.No.8 of 1998 passed by the Learned III Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.1997 in O.S.No.324 of 1992 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., the Learned III Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, while dismissing the Appeal, has opined that 'in the present case during the year 1962, the 1st Plaintiff (1st Appellant in A.S.No.8 of 1998) (since deceased) has left the house stating that he does not require any share in the properties and also the rest of the Defendants/Brothers (Respondents) have remained has join family till 1972 and in between them, it is quite clear that a partition has taken place as per Ex.B.1 Partition Deed dated 07.07.1972 and also that after partitioning the properties among the Defendants (Respondents), the Defendants (Respondents) have created mortgage in respect of the properties, which have come into their hands and pattas have been created in their favour and also they have paid land tax receipts, which is evident from the documents filed on behalf of the Defendants. Further, the 1st Appellant/1st Plaintiff (since deceased) has signed in Ex.B.1 Partition Deed and also that leaving him, the Defendants (Respondents) have been enjoying the suit properties without any interruption till the filing of the suit (i.e.) till 1992 and they have in enjoyment continuously and also that the Defendants (Respondents) have acquired right of adverse possession in respect of the suit properties and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal, with costs.

(3.) AT the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of Law are framed for consideration: ?1) Whether the first Appellate Court was right in rejecting the documents that were relied upon by the Appellant, especially in the light of the evidence of the Respondents/Defendants who admitted the property being ancestral property? 2) Whether the first Appellant Court was right in shifting the onus of proof towards the contentions raised by the Respondents on the Appellants, to prove that the Appellants had executed the partition deed??