partition, should establish that she is entitled to claim partition in the suit properties by virtue of the above said amendment Act. In such view of the matter, when the plaintiff has not set forth any pleas with reference to her claim in the plaint and also, not deposed anything during her chief-examination and only during cross-examination, when she has set out the case that she got married during the year 1990 and when that case of the plaintiff has not been accepted by the defendants and when it is found that the defendants have taken a plea that the plaintiff's marriage did not take place during the year 1990 and that she got married 25 years ago, as rightly held by the first appellate court, the plaintiff should have established her case by adducing acceptable and reliable evidence. Therefore, to argue that the defendants has not disputed the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim partition by virtue of the above said amendment Act, 1 of 1990 in the written statement, the plaintiff's case should be accepted as such, cannot be accepted. As adverted to earlier, the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded that she is claiming partition in the suit properties by virtue of the above said amendment Act and therefore, the question of the defendants repudiating the same in the written statement does not arise. On the other hand, when the plaintiff has come forward for the first time during the cross examination that she got married during
