exception could be taken in the determination of the first appellate Court for discarding Ex.B13 and it cannot be construed as a valid partition deed as projected by the defendant. Similarly, it is found that Exs.B14 sale transaction is dated 20.03.1993 and likewise, Exs.B15 and B16 are dated 29.03.1993 and they had come to be registered only after 11.7.1993. On the other hand, as rightly found by the first appellate Court that even prior to the said transaction, K.Ansari had purchased the suit property from Jahirabivi by way of Ex.A2, dated 15.4.1993 and therefore, in such view of the matter, merely from the additional documents projected by the defendant marked as Exs.B14 to B18, on their own, would not be safe to hold that the children of Jahirabivi had been settled the definite shares by the settlor, Jahirabivi, by way of Exs.B1 and B2 and that thereafter, they had been in possession and enjoyment of their specific shares allotted to them. On the other hand, as rightly found by the Courts below, Jahirabivi had thereafter sold her properties in favour of various persons as could be evidenced from Exs.A4 to A10 sale transactions. Similarly, it could also be seen that K.Ansari, after his purchase under Ex.A2 had been in possession and enjoyment of the property i.e., suit property, by way of letting out the same to Loganathan and the rent deed marked as Ex.A3 would point to the same. In such view of the matter, when it is found that as per law the Muslim lady cannot settle the undivided share in the property and when Exs.B1 and B2 do not point out that definite shares had been allotted to the children of the settlor and when it is further seen that even thereafter, the defendant has failed to establish that the children had effected partition as per law and been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and the additional documents projected, do not serve the purpose as determined by the first appellate Court, it is found that the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff cannot derive title to the suit property by way of Exs.A1 and A2, as such, cannot be accepted in any manner.
