Document No.704/1980 dated 16.04.1980. A reference through the shares allotted to the first defendant vide Ex.A2, it seems that in respect of the property in S.No.17/1, he was allotted 0.93 Cents out of 1.42 Acres. The extent of property which was settled in favour of the second and third defendants is also 0.93 Cents. In the schedule of the settlement deed, it is mentioned that in old S.No.17/1, out of 1.42 Acres, he has settled 0.57 1/2 Cents. In S.No.18/5, out of 0.43 Cents, he had settled 0.35 (1 1/2) Cents. But a conjoint reading of Exs.A2 and B3 would go to show that the first defendant was not allotted any land in old S.No.18/5 measuring an extent of 0.43 Cents. On the contrary, it was allotted in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the first defendant is not entitled to the property which was not allotted to his share by Ex.A2 which is an admitted document. On the other hand, the appellants are entitled to 0.93 Cents in S.No.17/1. Therefore, the settlement in respect of the property in S.No.18/5 is without title and hence not valid and the appellant/first defendant is entitled to settle only the extent of 0.93 Cents of property in S.No.17/1 only and not the property in S.No.18/5. The other brother Manavalan who was examined on the side of the defendants as D.W.2 would categorically depose that the property was enjoyed by the respective sharers and the partition deed dated 16.04.1980 was acted upon. Therefore, from the evidence of D.W.2, the brother who is an independent witness and from the evidence of D.W.1, it is clearly noted that as per the partition, the brothers have derived title to the property and in respect of the Suit property in S.No.18/5 measuring an extent of 0.43 Cents, the plaintiff is the title holder.
