other hand, the pleadings are to the effect about the partition effected between them. The exchange of the property under Ex.D19 is not evident in the written statement of the defendants. Ex.D19 is an unregistered document, under the said document, the immovable property is said to be transferred between Kataiah and Chikkaiah, the Trial Court rightly arrived at a conclusion that under Ex.D19, there is no right or title conveyed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No.1. The grant in favour of the husband of plaintiff No.2 being not in dispute, the burden was on the defendants to prove that there was a partition effected and the suit property fell to the share of defendant No.1’s father. As stated supra, Ex.D19 does not evidence any partition between Kataiah and Chikkaiah, on the other hand, it indicates exchange of lands. The defendants claimed their title over the suit property contending that the revenue records have been effected in the name of their father, pursuant to the partition, mere entry in the revenue records would not
