However, to evidence the same, there is no acceptable and reliable material putforth on the part of the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is seen from the release deed executed by Manonmani ammal in favour of Sengamuthu marked as Ex.A1, the properties comprised in survey No.214/4 and 214/10 had been dealt with under Ex.A1 and furthermore, the property of an extent of 46 cents in survey No.214/5 had also been dealt with under Ex.A1. Thus the properties are found to be allotted to Vadivel, the other brother and in turn, his wife Manonmani ammal had relinquished the same in favour of Sengamuthu. In such view of the matter, the case of the plaintiff that thereafter the two sons namely he and Govindha samy alone had partitioned the three items amongst themselves as such cannot be accepted, sans any reliable material pointing to the same. On the other hand, as rightly found by the Courts below, the three sons are found to have divided the remaining undivided properties and accordingly each were granted separate shares and accordingly it is found that the shares allotted to Palanivel had been acquired by the defendant by way of Ex.B1 sale deed and in such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the first appellate court, when the plaintiff has not established the plea of partition in respect of the three items amongst him and Govindhasamy alone, and on the other hand, when the materials placed on record go to show that the three brothers namely the plaintiff, Govindhasamy and Palanivel had divided the said properties and thereafter the defendant had purchased the shares allotted to Palanivel, in such view of the matter, when the subject matter of the oral partition had already been dealt with under Ex.A1 transaction, in all, it is found that the Courts below had rightly disbelieved the plea of oral partition as projected by the plaintiff in respect of the abovesaid three items as referred to.
