14.Inasmuch as, as per the records available, it is only Dhanalakshmi ammal, who had the absolute title to the plaint A schedule properties and on the other hand, the defendants have put up the case that in the oral partition effected during the year 1992, the plaint A schedule properties had been the subject matter between Dhanalakshmi ammal and her two sons Durai and Udhaya kumar. It is thus for the defendants to establish that such an oral partition took place during the year 1992 between Dhanalakshmi ammal and her two sons and in the same, the suit properties had been allotted to the share of Udhaya Kumar as putforth by them. However, the defendants had failed to establish the abovesaid version projected by them. In this connection, the first defendant examined as D.W.1, during the course of cross examination has admitted, that though in the chief examination she would claim that during the year 1992, the two sons of Dhanalakshmi ammal had divided the properties obtained by Dhanalakshmi ammal by way of a settlement, that she does not know about the oral partition effected amongst the abovesaid persons directly and she had only heard about the same and according to her, the abvoesaid partition was effected in the presence of Perumal Gounder and Kandhasamy and when as admitted by D.W.1, the first defendants, he does not know about the oral partition put forth by the defendants alleged to have been effected during the year 1992 amongst Dhanalakshmi ammal and her two sons and she had only heard about the same, it is evident that her evidence would be of no use to sustain the abovesaid oral partition putforth by the defendants.
