the Hindu Succession Act, oral partition cannot be accepted. In the case on hand, only talks were held and in terms of the said panchayath talks, the parties have not acted upon. When such being the case, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra) is applicable, since plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected out rightly. In the case on hand, when the parties have not acted upon in terms of the panchayath, oral partition cannot be accepted. Both the Courts have not accepted the same, since the terms of panchayath has not been acted upon. When such being the case, even though this Court has framed the substantial question of law that having held that there was an oral agreement for partition and as per the terms of the said agreement on 26.10.2008, part payment of Rs.23,000/- was made in terms of Ex.P.1, the First Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit holding that there was no division of properties by metes and bounds, since the defendant has not acted upon in terms of the compromise. If the defendant had paid the balance amount within time as agreed, then this Court would have found fault in considering the case by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and mere talks held between
