RAJAMANI Vs. ARTHANARI GOUNDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants in the Original Suit O.S.No.176 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari, are the Appellants in the Second Appeal. Arthanari Gounder, the sole Respondent in the Second Appeal, filed the above said suit for partition and for permanent injunction. Partition was claimed on the basis of the contention that though the parties were enjoying different portions of the suit property for the sake of convenience, there was no partition by metes and bounds. The nature of injunction sought for was not to prevent the Respondent/Plaintiff from taking his tractor, carts, men and cattle through the portions in the enjoyment of the appellants/defendants.

(2.) The claim of the Respondent herein/Plaintiff was resisted by the Appellants herein/Defendants before the trial Court, contending that in 1955 itself there was an oral partition between Muthayi Ammal, the predecessor in title of the Respondent herein/Plaintiff and Kali Gounder, the predecessor in title of the Appellants herein/Defendants; that pursuant to such oral partition and seperate enjoyment of different portions of their shares sub-divisions were made and seperate pattas came to be issued in favour of the persons in enjoyment of various portions and that since the Appellants/Defendants dug a well in their portion and they were able to irrigate their portions of land, the Respondent/Plaintiff came forward with the suit with false and untenable averments making tall claims.

(3.) In the trial before the trial Court, on the side of the Respondent herein/Plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and six documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6 and on the side of the Appellants herein/Defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.Ws. 1 to 3 and five documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B5. An Advocate Commissioner, appointed to inspect the suit properties filed a report and plan. The Report of the Advocate Commissioner and the Plan submitted by him were marked as Exs. C1 and C2.