JUDGMENT P. DEVADASS, J. 1. This is defendants appeal. 2. The respondent/plaintiff and 1st appellant 1st defendants are brothers and appellants 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 are their sisters. Their parents are Govindan and Kaliammal. The respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 596 of 2004 as against the appellants, seeking partition with respect to two items of properties. 3. It is alleged in the plaint that suit item No. 1 has been assigned to their father Govindan by the Government and it has become their family property and suit 2nd item belongs to their mother Kaliammal. Thus the plaintiff sought for his 1/4 share in both the items. 4. The suit has been resisted by the defendants by a filing written statement. According to them, suit 1st item was assigned by the Government in favour of the 1st defendant, it was sold by him to the 2nd defendant under Ex.A.2 sale deed. Thus, in the 1st item, plaintiff is not entitle to any share. As regards suit 2nd item, the defendants pleaded that after the death of their mother, by an oral partition, 37 cents of property has been equally divided between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. Plaintiff was allotted the house property bearing door No. 61/1 together with the vacant land and the suit 2nd item was allotted to the share of 1st defendant. Thus, in the 2nd item also, plaintiff cannot seek any share. 5. On the divergent pleadings, the trial Court/Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur framed the issues, tried the suit. Plaintiff Ramasamy examined himself as P.W.1 and his relative Alagumalai as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A.1 to A.6, while the defendants have examined 1st defendant Ramasamy as D.W.1 and 2nd defendant's husband Sathuragiri as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. 6. Appreciating the arguments of both, analyzing the said evidence, with respect to item No. 1, trial Court came to the conclusion that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have proved their respective cases and with respect to 2nd item, the defendants have not established that it was already divided at an oral partition, thus, decreed the suit with respect to suit 2nd item granting 1/4 share to the plaintiff and dismissed the suit with respect to suit 1st item. 7. 7. The defendants have directed the first appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2008, before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, while plaintiff preferred cross-appeal as against the dismissal of the suit with respect to 1st item. 8. The 1st appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established that the suit 1st item is their family property and suit 2nd item is their mother's property, thus, in both items plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share. Thus, allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal and dismissed the defendants main appeal. 9. In the circumstances, the defendants have come forward with this Second Appeal. 10. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal the then learned brother framed the following substantial questions of law:- "A. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court in respect of first item of suit schedule property and thereby passed a preliminary decree in respect of first schedule property alone, when the respondent has not produced any document to prove that the suit first scheduled property belongs to their father and hence the same is without any material evidence is liable to be set aside by this Court? B. Whether, the courts below are right in giving a finding that oral partition made in respect of suit second scheduled property and other properties was not proved by the appellant when Exs.B.2, Ex.B.3 clearly proves that mutation has been effected on the basis of oral partition and the same amounts to non-consideration of vital evidence and hence warrants interference by this Court." 11. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the basic principle is that the parties to a suit have to prove their respective cases. They have to discharge their onus by letting in relevant and proper evidence. However, one cannot seek to prove his case through the defects or holes in the evidence of the other. 12. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellants cited Chinnayyan vs. Jayaraman, AIR 1996 Madras 408 and Ayyakannu Gounder vs. Virudhambal Ammal, 2005 (1) CTC 409 . 13. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, both the Courts below have missed the said basic principle of law while appreciating the evidence and that has resulted in passing the impugned judgments and decrees which are unsustainable. 14. 13. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, both the Courts below have missed the said basic principle of law while appreciating the evidence and that has resulted in passing the impugned judgments and decrees which are unsustainable. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that with respect to suit 1st item, the plaintiff had not at all proved his case by producing relevant documents. In this respect, the trial Court took the right decision, namely, denying the relief to the plaintiff with respect to the suit 1st item. However, the first appellate Court misdirected itself and recorded a finding as against the said basic principle of law and granted relief with respect to the 1st item to the plaintiff. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the suit 2nd item having been already subjected to oral partition has been evidenced by Ex.A.6 and that has been allotted to the 1st appellant is also evidenced by Ex.B2, B.3, which are to the effect of having brought mutation in favour of the 1st defendant. However, this vital aspect has been missed by both the Courts below. 16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that with respect to suit 1st item, the trial Court had confused in noting down its old survey number and new survey number. D.W.1 himself has admitted that 1st item is their ancestral property. This has been overlooked by the trial Court. However, this has been rightly noted down by the 1st appellate Court and it had correctly granted decree with respect to suit 1st item. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that 37 cents having been already subjected to oral partition between the plaintiff and 1st defendant is an admitted aspect. Now, the 1st defendant wanted to confuse it with suit 2nd item. The oral partition pleaded with respect to suit 2nd item has not been established by the appellants. Ex.A.6 would not show any oral partition of their mother's property. Ex.A.6 would show defendants releasing of their share in their father's house property in favour of the respondent. Exs.B.2 and B.3 are bereft of particulars and are not in the nature of effecting any mutation of property right. Ex.A.6 would not show any oral partition of their mother's property. Ex.A.6 would show defendants releasing of their share in their father's house property in favour of the respondent. Exs.B.2 and B.3 are bereft of particulars and are not in the nature of effecting any mutation of property right. In the circumstances, with respect to suit 2nd item, both the Courts have recorded a correct finding and granted the relief sought for. 18. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the records of the case and the impugned judgments and decrees and also perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. 19. In the suit, the respondent/plaintiff sought for his 1/4th share in the suit 1st and 2nd items. Let us see each item one by one. 20. The suit 1st item is an house site situate in Kadampankulam Village in Rajapalayam Taluk in Virudhunagar Revenue District. 21. According to the plaintiff, it was assigned in the name of their father Govindan and it has become their family property. The fact that 1st defendant being the eldest in the family got issuance of patta with respect to suit 1st item will not change the character of the property, namely, ancestral property. 22. The case of the defendants is that it is a Government land assigned in favour of 1st defendant and in his own right he has sold it to the second defendant under Ex.A.2 sale deed. 23. P.W.1, plaintiff spoken about the suit 1st item having been allotted to their father, which was enjoyed and treated as their family property and so far it was not subjected to partition. His evidence has been corroborated by P.W.2 Azhagumalai. 24. Ex.A.1 has been pressed into service to advance plaintiff's case that the suit 1st item was given to their father Govindan. Ex.A.1 dated 22.02.1980, has been issued by the Government under the Survey and Boundaries Act to Govindan. It contains boundaries also. It being tallied with the suit property had been admitted by the defendants in their evidence. 24. Ex.A.1 has been pressed into service to advance plaintiff's case that the suit 1st item was given to their father Govindan. Ex.A.1 dated 22.02.1980, has been issued by the Government under the Survey and Boundaries Act to Govindan. It contains boundaries also. It being tallied with the suit property had been admitted by the defendants in their evidence. Further, it has been demonstrated that there is difference in the survey number mentioned in the suit schedule with respect to suit 1st item because Ex.A.1 relates to old survey number and the suit relates to new survey number and that did not make out any difference as to the identity of the property referred to in Ex.A.1 and the property described as 1st item in the suit schedule. 25. Ex.B.1 is a joint patta issued in the name of 1st defendant. It did not tally with the suit survey number. Further, the 1st defendant being the eldest in the family, possibility of issuance of patta in his name in that capacity cannot be ruled out. Above all, during his cross-examination, first defendant (D.W.1) admits that he has not no assignment deed to show that the suit 1st item was assigned to him. He also admits that in 1st item besides him, others are also having share. In his cross-examination, he candidly admits that the 1st item belongs to their ancestors. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.B.1, besides the name of 1st defendant, others also have been included. 26. There cannot be any quarrel over the basic principle relating to each party proving their case, onus lies upon whom, which have been reiterated in Chinnayyan vs. Jayaraman, AIR 1996 Madras 408 and Ayyakannu Gounder vs. Virudhambal Ammal, 2005 (1) CTC 409 . 27. In the face of the evidence seen, the matter have to be viewed from different angle. Admission is best form of proof has been recognized in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. However, Courts can always call for proof, if not satisfied with the admissions. When the admissions are candid, clear cut, unambiguous and also supported by evidence, there is no need to labour much and there is no need to call for proof of such admitted aspects. 28. However, Courts can always call for proof, if not satisfied with the admissions. When the admissions are candid, clear cut, unambiguous and also supported by evidence, there is no need to labour much and there is no need to call for proof of such admitted aspects. 28. Now, in the instant case with respect to suit 1st item, the basic and relevant evidence is to the effect that it has been assigned to their family and as such it being treated as their family property and as such it has become their ancestral property. The 1st defendant, who is the main contestant in the suit, candidly admits in clear cut terms that it is their ancestral property. Admission is a best form of proof. We need not confuse it with the principle of onus. However, this vital aspect has been missed by the trial Court and thus it gave a wrong finding that the suit 1st item has not been established to be their family property. However, the first appellate Court read the evidence in proper perspective and concluded that the suit 1st item is their family property and so far it was not subjected to partition. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in it. In the circumstances, we answer the 1st substantial question of law as against the appellants. 29. Suit 2nd item is an house property bearing the door No. 304. Admittedly, it belongs to their mother Kaliammal. Plaintiff claims 1/4th share in it. However, the defendants contends that after the death of their mother in an oral partition 37 cents of property have been equally divided between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. To the plaintiff, the house bearing door No. 60/1 together with the vacant site has been allotted, while the suit 2nd item has been allotted to the 1st defendant, thus, it is not available for partition. 30. Defendants admit that the suit second item belongs to their mother. But they have pleaded an oral partition and it fell to the share of the 1st defendant. In such circumstances, the onus is upon the defendant to establish it. (See – Chinnayyan vs. Jayaraman, AIR 1996 Madras 408 and Ayyakannu Gounder vs. Virudhambal Ammal, 2005 (1) CTC 409 . 31. It is not in dispute that already 37 cents of the property have been divided equally between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. In such circumstances, the onus is upon the defendant to establish it. (See – Chinnayyan vs. Jayaraman, AIR 1996 Madras 408 and Ayyakannu Gounder vs. Virudhambal Ammal, 2005 (1) CTC 409 . 31. It is not in dispute that already 37 cents of the property have been divided equally between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Under Ex.A.6 dated 25.04.1988, all the defendants have released their right in the property bearing door No. 60/1 in favour of the respondent. Actually this property belongs to their father Govindan. Whereas, the suit second item belongs to their mother Kaliammal. Thus, Ex.A.6 did not advance defendants case of prior oral partition 1st defendant alleges that he had put up a pucca super structure thereon. However, he did not produce any building plan etc. 32. Ex.B.2 (series) House Tax Receipts and Ex.B.3 (series) E.B. Remittance Receipts, which are in the name of 1st defendant does not contain any details to correlate them with the house in the suit 2nd item. 33. D.W.2, who is the brother-in-law of D.W.1, is on the side of D.W.1. D.W.2 has been examined to speak about the fact that a partition had taken place after few years of the death of his mother-in-law. But he could not able to furnish correctly the year of death of his mother-in-law and the year of death of their mother mentioned in the plaint remain unrefuted by the defendants in the written statement. The highly interested oral testimony of D.W.2 had not improved the already grumbling case of defendants. 34. In the circumstances, Ex.B.2 and B.3 cannot be taken to have the effect of mutation of suit 2 item property in favour of the 1st defendant. It is clear that their mother's property, namely, suit 2nd item, so far has not been subjected to partition. Thus, in this item also the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share. Such a view has been correctly taken by both the Courts below. In the circumstances, we answer the second substantial question of law also as against the appellants. 35. In view of the fore goings, this Second Appeal fails and it is dismissed and the decree and judgment of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur in A.S. No. 12 of 2008 and the Cross Appeal are confirmed. Since both the parties are closely related, they shall bear their respective costs in the Second Appeal. 35. In view of the fore goings, this Second Appeal fails and it is dismissed and the decree and judgment of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur in A.S. No. 12 of 2008 and the Cross Appeal are confirmed. Since both the parties are closely related, they shall bear their respective costs in the Second Appeal. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2009 is also dismissed.