12.Both the Courts below have rightly come to the
conclusion that except oral assertion of PW1 that there was
partition between himself and the Kuppusamy, (who is the son born
through the first wife of the first plaintiff), the same was not
proved in the manner known to law. No other document or no other
witness were examined in support of the same. On contrary, the
defendants have marked Ex.B3/sale deed, wherein the plaintiff
along with his first wife son have lands to the third party and
recital therein indicates, there is no family partition. In
other words, the plaintiff family is still stand joint till
Ex.B3, dated 23.05.1994. Hence, both the Courts below have
rightly rejected the said plea raised by the first
plaintiff/first appellant regarding family partition wherein,
Kuppusamy was allotted some other land in the family partition
has not proved. It remains to be stated that even before
execution of Ex.A1/sale deed on 30.07.1981, the son of first
plaintiff has sold 56 cents under Ex.B1, dated 23.07.1981, in
turn, purchased by defendant Ex.B2, on 30.07.1981 viz., on the
same day of Ex.A1, assumes significance. Since, the plea of
partition raised the plaintiff was held to be not proved and
hence, Ex.B1 is valid to the limited of his share. In other
words, even under Ex.A1, whether plaintiff can transfer and sale,
the total extent to the defendant is doubtful.
