Unchallenged revenue entries may corroborate an oral partition without a registered deed.

The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of lands they claimed were joint-family properties inherited from their common ancestor, Bharashetty.

They alleged that no partition had taken place between Bharashetty’s sons, Totappa and Ramshetty.

The defendant disputed the claim, asserting that the suit lands had fallen to his share in an earlier partition.

The trial court dismissed the suit, relying on revenue records and other evidence of prior partition; the first appellate court affirmed that decision.

In the second appeal, the High Court admitted the appeal on questions concerning whether the courts below overlooked evidence of partition and whether they had failed to frame and decide a specific issue regarding the parties’ relationship.

Whether the courts below overlooked the evidence and found a prior partition without evidentiary support.

Whether the courts below failed to frame and adjudicate a specific issue concerning the relationship of the parties, as allegedly directed by the High Court.

Under Hindu law, a partition need not be effected by a registered partition deed; an oral partition or family arrangement may be sufficient.

Entries in revenue records maintained in the ordinary course of official business are relevant evidence of a partition and may corroborate oral evidence.

The Court relied on Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devaram Giridhar Patil and Another, AIR 1995 SC 1279, and Rathnamma and Others v. K. Rajappa, RFA No. 270 of 2007, decided 25 August 2011, for these principles.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which concerns second appeals on substantial questions of law.

The High Court found that the revenue records for 1954–55 to 1963–64 recorded the defendant’s name and supported the finding of an earlier partition; the plaintiffs had not challenged those entries.

Applying the cited principles, the Court treated those records as relevant evidence of partition and upheld the concurrent finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the properties remained joint-family property.

It also rejected the challenge concerning relationship, noting that the trial court had framed an issue on the relevant relationship and answered it in the affirmative.

It confirmed the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court, leaving the dismissal of the partition suit undisturbed.