defendant No.3 and his sons and it clearly goes to show that they are the divided family members of defendant No.3. The other documents also refer to a recital of oral partition prior to 1984. Therefore, in view of the admitted documentary evidence, the finding of the lower Court that the plaintiff, who was not associated with the family affairs being away from the village, cannot be expected to have adduced better evidence. While coming to a conclusion on the failure of the evidence, the lower Court failed to notice that there was a clear recitals about the earlier partition in all the sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 and his family members. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there is no other conclusion available except to hold that the suit schedule property is the property of the 1st defendant. In fact, if any of the defendants have got claim over the schedule property there is no reason as to why the 1st defendant was not asked to join in the other alienations. Even otherwise Acs.22.00 cents is the only available land, in which the 1st defendant has got right and as the other alienations are not proved to be binding on the 1st defendant or for the benefit of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant will be entitled to the balance of the property, which is available. Probably, the reason for not being able to alienate the property may be that defendant No.3 has leased out the property even in 1978 to defendant No.4 and another and this property was kept separate. Therefore, for the above reasons I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court in allotting the Acs.22.00 cents of land as being the share of the 1st defendant in which the partition is to be effected.
