Judgment :- This judgment shall govern the two appeals. These two second appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, made in A.S.No.7/90 dated 19.8.1991 wherein a common judgment was rendered. Those two appeals arises from the judgement of the Learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, made in O.S.No.2366 of 1989 and O.S.No.345/81 respectively in a suit for partition and recovery of possession. 2. The following are the necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were the children of one Venkatachala Pannadi who died on 3.12.1979; that the said properties belong to the family ancestorally; that on his death the plaintiffs are entitled to 14/24th share and the rest to the defendants as the last succession; that the defendants 3 to 7 entered into different agreement of sale with Venkatachala Pannadi and the same would not be binding on the plaintiffs since they were not the parties to the same; that the defendants 3 to 7 pursuant to the said agreements have raised temporary sheds in the properties and they have also been in possession of the same; that under the said agreement, the defendants 3 to 7 could not get any right over the property since they have acted against the terms of agreement even during the life time of Venkatachala Pannadi; that since the defendants are making attempts to trespass into the said property, there arose a necessity for division of the property and also for recovery of possession. 3. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that he was entitled to 9/24th share and the second defendant is entitled to 1/24th share. The suit was vehemently contested by the other defendants. The case of defendants 4 to 6 and 9 was that during the life time of Venkatachala Pannadi, the property was exclusively belong to Venkatachala Pannadi; that he entered into different written agreement of sale; that the defendants agreed to convey 5 cents of land each and got Rs.200 advance from each of them and pursuant to the agreement, they got possession and they have raised construction therein; that they issued notice to the plaintiffs on the death of Venkatachala Pannadi but they evaded the same and have broughtforth the suit vexatiously. The 8th and 9th defendant filed written statement stating that they did not agree with the plaintiff's plea that they have trespassed into the property; that pursuant to an oral agreement of sale, they have got possession of the property and they have been there by raising construction therein and thus, they could not be vacated. 4. The trial Court framed necessary issues, tried the suit and dismissed the same. Aggrieved plaintiffs took it on appeal which ws numbered as A.S.Nos.7/90 and 8/90. Both the appeals were heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and a common judgement was rendered. 5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court in S.A.No.685/92 and S.A.1477/92 respectively. 1.Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court and whether there are any reasons in the judgment of the lower appellate Court? 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit, when the suit properties were held to be the self acquired properties of Venkatachala Pannady, who parted away the properties prior to his death? 3.Whether the plaintiffs can succeed as the lacuna(if any) in the defence? 4.Whether the lower appellate Court correctly placed the burden of proof? 5. Whether the conclusion of the Court below that the suit property was the separate propertyof Venkatachala Pannadi is correct when admitedly he got the said property in a partition between him, his father and his brothers viz., ex.A.1; and 6. Whether the conclusion of the Court below that the agreements of sale in favour of defendants 4 to 7 were invalid and binding on the shares of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant is correct when they are not parties to the same and there is no finding that the agreements were for a purpose binding on the other co-parceners.? 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. 7. After hearing the rival submissions and the scrutiny of the available materials, the Court is of the considered view that either of the appeals carries no merit. As could be seen above, it was originally a suit for partition and for recovery of possession alleging that the suit properties belonged to the family of Venkatachala Pannadi ancestorally and the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were his heirs to succeed to the property. As could be seen above, it was originally a suit for partition and for recovery of possession alleging that the suit properties belonged to the family of Venkatachala Pannadi ancestorally and the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were his heirs to succeed to the property. From the available evidence, both the courts have recorded that the property belonged to the family originally and a partition was entered into between the family members of one Rangaiah Pannadi and the suit properties came to the hands of Venkatachala Pannadi in the said family division which took place in 1920. Under such circumstances, in view of such a partition entered into by the family members, it would be futile on the part of the defendants to say that the suit property was the exclusive property of Venkatachala Pannadi and not that of family property. The first appellate Court on consideration of the evidence available, found that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to have their share and to adjudicate their rights since each of them are entitled to 1/8th share in the said property. Now, the scope of these two appeals seems to be that the 8th defendant who is aggrieved over the denial of the second defendant's plea by the Court below has broughtforth the S.A.No.685/92, while the first defendant aggrieved over the grant of the relief in favour of other defendants for specific performance has broughtforth the other Appeal namely S.A.1477/92. 8. In so far as A.S.No.685/92 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant interalia would submit that even the identity of the property is questioned before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court but both the Courts have not considered the said aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the 8th defendant would submit that he got into possession of the property pursuant to the agreement with Venkatachala Pannadi and he has been in possession for long and the lower court granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff as it was done to defendants 3 to 6. 9.This Court is unable to see any merit in either of the contentions. 9.This Court is unable to see any merit in either of the contentions. The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 were the heirs of Venkatachala Pannadi and it was not in dispute that the properties in question in respect of which relief was sought for belonged to the joint family and both the Courts have also found so and defendants 3 to 7 defended the suit stating that Venkatachala Pannadi entered into different agreements of sale with them during his life time and they were put in possession. Equally so, the defendants 8 and 9 defended the suit stating that Venkatachala Pannadi entered into oral agreement of sale and thus they got into possession. Under such circumtances, having taken the defence that they are in possession of the property under the agreement of sale entered into with Venkatachala Pannadi, the defendants at no stretch of imagination can question the identity of the property. The first appellate Court has assigned proper and acceptable reasons that the identity of the property could not be questioned. So far as the second contention is concerned, this Court accepts the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. Regarding the case of the 8th defendant that he is in possession of the property by oral agreement , the first appellate Court has pointed out clearly that no materials are available before the Court to accept the oral agreement made by the 8th defendant and in the absence of any proof therefor, it would be highly difficult to accept that the 8th defendant is in possession pursuant to oral agreement. If the defence of 8th defendant that he is possession of the property falls to ground, he has got to be necessarily termed as trespasser into the suit property since the ownership of the original owner is an admitted fact. Under such circumstances, the Court of the view that there is no reason to accept the contention of the 8th defendant and the appeal has got to be necessarily dismissed. 9. In so far as S.A.No.1477/92 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant would now submit that the lower Court ought not to have granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the parties. 9. In so far as S.A.No.1477/92 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant would now submit that the lower Court ought not to have granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the parties. Both the Courts have given the concurrent finding and have relied on different agreements of sale executed by Venkatachala Pannadi in favour of defendants 3 to 7 and under these circumstances, the other defendants could not be permitted to go against it as it would be binding on them. Since, the concurrent finding does not require any intereference by this Court, both the appeals carries no merit and the second appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their costs.