of the properties in Thakkamedu village, in the teeth of Exs.B-1 and B-2 registered partition deeds even during the life time of the appellant's / plaintiff's father, Duraisamy , in which the appellant / plaintiff has also signed, it cannot be said that the properties are available for partition. The very fact, that the respective allottees have dealt with their shares by even selling some of the items of the properties to the other respondents / defendants, would fortify that the properties were no longer available for partition. In view thereof, when the Trial Court has adverted to the relevant document and the oral evidence of P.W.5 , and has found that in view of the earlier partition as well as the sale deeds, the properties mentioned in schedule - B and C properties will no longer be available for partition. No exception whatsoever can be taken in respect of the said findings. The respondents / defendants have proved their case by marking Exs.B-1 and B2 . On the other hand, the appellant / plaintiff answered the crossexamination that he signed in the partition documents only for the purpose
