per Ex.P2 in which ‘A’ schedule property was given to the vendor of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 does not dispute the partition as per Ex.P1. Ex.P1 clearly proves that ‘A’ schedule property was given to Akkamma Shedthi and not Laxmi Shedthi, later on it came to the share of Rukmini Shedthi and Rukmini Shedthi has sold the same under the registered sale deed to the plaintiff. These documents clearly established the predecessor in title of the plaintiff were the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Except showing that in Ex.D5 ‘A’ schedule property was fallen to the share of branch of Laxmi Shedthy there is no documentary evidence to show, as to how this property was given to Laxmi Shedthi. When defendant No.1 has admitted that there was partition in 1945 as per Ex.P1, said partition does not show Laxmi Shedthi was given ‘A’ schedule property. Hence, if Laxmi Shedthi had no share in the ‘A’ schedule property, there could not have been transfer of the said ‘A’ schedule property either by Laxmi Shedthi or defendant No.1 claiming that it belonging to branch of Laxmi Shedthi. Hence, even execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4, they do not get any right title
