handed over to Veerappa Chettiar unless materials are projected to rebut the same. Insofar as the abovesaid position, it is found that absolutely there is no material on the part of the plaintiff to hold that even pursuant to the court auction sale, the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties had remained in the family of the plaintiff and the defendants and enjoyed by them as their own properties. With reference to the same, absolutely there is no material on the part of the plaintiff. On the other hand, according to the plaintiff, the first defendant, at the time of Ex.A8 partition, suppressed the existence of the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. Per contra, according to the defendants, Veerappa Chettiar had, after enjoying the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, alienated the said items in favour of the first defendant orally during the year 1962 and since then, it is only the defendants who had been enjoying the said properties by effecting division amongst themselves. The plaintiff examined as P.W.1, during the course of cross examination has clearly admitted that he is fully aware that it is only the defendants who had been enjoying the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties separately from the year 1971 and accordingly, when to the knowledge of the plaintiff, it is seen that the defendants 1 and 2 had been enjoying the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties separately following the division effected amongst themselves with reference to the same, the contention of the plaintiff that the first defendant had suppressed the existence of the suit properties at the time of Ex.A8 partition deed, cannot, at all, be countenanced in any manner. In addition to that, the evidence had been let in by the defendants through D.W.2 that it is only Veerappa Chettiar, who had taken the possession of the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties, enjoying the same and D.W.2 had also tendered evidence that he had enjoyed the said items under Veerappa Chettiar on waram basis and thereafter, Veerappa Chettiar had alienated the same in favour of the first defendant orally. Despite the cross examination, nothing has been culled out from D.W.2 to dis-credit his evidence in any manner. D.W.2 has also tendered evidence that he had knowledge about the taking of the delivery of the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties by Veerappa Chettiar in the court process as he had also attested the receipt executed in connection with the same. As abovenoted, when to the knowledge of the plaintiff, it is only the defendants, who had been enjoying the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in distinct mode, to say that the said items continue to remain as the joint family properties and that the same had been suppressed by the defendants at the time of Ex.A8 partition deed, cannot, at all, be accepted in any manner.
