His further case is that in the oral partition which took place in the year 1969, the property measuring about 77 cents situated in R.S.No.228/9 was allotted to the plaintiff's father Chennimoopan; the property situated in R.S.No.228/8 was alloted to the first defendant and the property situated in R.S.No.228/10 was allotted to the third party. In the written statement, though the defendants 1 to 3 have denied the allegation that the plaintiff's father Chennimoopan was allotted an extent of 77 cents in R.S.No.228/9 in the oral partition effected in the year 1969, in paragraph No.3 of the written statement, it was pleaded that it is true in the resurvey, the first defendant and others were alloted specific shares and separate sub–division numbers were given to the parties concerned. Further, the first defendant, while examining himself as DW1, has admitted in his cross examination that originally his land, plaintiff's land and Krishnasamy's land were in one unit and he purchased a common one-third share in the aforesaid lands and after his purchase, his land has been sub- divided as R.S.No.228/8. Since the lands situated in R.S.No.228/8, 9 and 10 originally belonged to a common ancestor, the plaintiff is entitled to have a cart track from the panchayat road to reach his lands.
