4(b). In the year 1960, this extent of 1.08 acres was orally partitioned between the said Marimuthu kounder and Vendayee kounder, with each of them taking a equal share of 54 cents. Ramasamy kounder, Arumugham kounder and Natesan kounder are the children of Marimuthu kounder. Arumugham kounder pre-deceased his father, 17 years prior to the filing of the suit and Marimuthu kounder had also died. Thereafter, since Ramaswamy kounder, Natesan kounder and the widow of Arumugham kounder, namely Lakshmi Ammal orally partitioned the 54 cents which fell to the share of Marimuthu kounder. In the partition, which took place in the year 1969, 29 cents was given to Lakshmi Ammal, widow of Arumugham kounder, and the remaining extent was shared equally between Ramaswamy kounder and Natesan kounder i.e., 12 ½ cents each under registered sale deed dated 01.07.1990. Lakshmi Ammal sold the 29 cents allotted to her along with the 1/24 right in the well, to the first defendant. After the sale of the 1.08 acres to Manakatti Ammal, the remaining 95 cents, together with the 2/3 shares in the well, was partitioned amongst Vadivel kounder, Saravanan, Dhandapani. Saravana kounder sold 32 cents, which was allotted to him, together with the share in the well, to Seethammal wife of Vadivel kounder, under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1946. Subsequent to the demise of Seethammal, the property was being enjoyed by Vadivel kounder. The said Vadivel kounder sold this 32 cents as well as 31 ½ cents, which was allotted to him to Ramaswamy kounder under registered sale deed dated 24.04.1958, along with 2/3 rights in the well. Under the registered sale deed dated 29.01.1969, the said property [63 ½ cents] was sold to the first defendant. Therefore, it was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in items 1 to 3 of suit A-Schedule Property and therefore, the sale deeds dated 08.05.1972, 28.06.1972 and 20.09.1976 were not enforceable. They would further contend that the plaintiffs had no right to the suit well and that they have never enjoyed this right, as they were irrigating their lands from the river water. They would further contend that Vendayee kounder had handed over his rights to the defendants and therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit.
