(ii) (2011) (3) MWN (Civil) 149 (Jagannathan Vs. Ramachandran), the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “9. On the other hand, the appellant has pleaded that in the oral partition that took place in the family of the respondent/plaintiff, his father and brother were allotted eastern portion in S.No.106/5 of an extent 17 acres, northern portion in S.No.105/3, and 4 hertz in S.No.130/14 was allotted to the share of the respondent/plaintiff. As stated supra, both the parties, pleaded oral partition in or about the same time and according to the plaintiff, he was allotted the suit property and two others properties. To prove the same, the respondent/plaintiff marked Ex.A1-patta dated 22.9.1983, wherein, he was stated to be owner of the property in S.Nos.105/3A, 106/5A and 106/4B. The patta pass book was also issued in his favour, as evidenced by Ex.A2. The kist receipts from the year 1982 onwards would in addition probablize the case of the respondent/plaintiff that in the oral partition, the suit property was allotted to him and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The appellant also admitted in the statement that the property in S.No.106/5A and S.No.105/3A, were allotted to the respondent/plaintiff. The Exs.A1 and A2, also mentions about those properties in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, when Exs.A1 and A2, viz., the patta and the patta pass book are in the name of the plaintiff and they mention not only the properties in S.Nos.106/5A and 105/3A, but also the suit property, the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to him under the oral partition is more probable and was also strengthened by the production of the kist receipts from the year 1982 onwards in the name of the respondent/plaintiff.
