there is no registered partition deed. Except the oral evidence of DW.2 and others, 3rd defendant was examined as DW.6 and she is the mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and she also support the claim of partition. But, however, the court below was not inclined to accept the above partition because of the fact that the particulars of the properties that have fallen to the share of each brother was not given, though in the evidence DW.1 wanted to make out the particulars. It was also further noticed that the evidence of DW.2 that he has measured the plots is not believable, according to the lower court, as his name was not mentioned in the written statement and in fact his evidence is also very vague. Added to all these circumstances, it is to be mentioned that the revenue record does not record the separate possession and enjoyment of the each brother after the alleged partition. Though some evidence of DWs.3 and 4 is sought to be relied upon to show as if the extent of Ac.1.20 guntas of land was leased out by Bhaskar Rao during his life time and thereafter by the first plaintiff, there is no document to evidence the same. In order to show that the first plaintiff and her husband have exercised their right of ownership over Ac.1.20 guntas of land, which were given to Bhaskar Rao, the defendants want to rely upon the fact that first plaintiff wanted to sell the mango tope to DW.4 and that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was taken as an advance and on the 10th day ceremony of the deceased-Bhaskar Rao, the said agreement was cancelled by the defendants and they have paid back money to DW.4 and have taken return of the
