JUDGMENT : G. Jayachandran, J. The appellants herein are the defendants 3 to 6 in the suit for partition. The subject matter of the suit is a part of a larger extent of land measuring a total extend of 6.17 acres in S.No:17, R.S No: 96. 2. Out of 6.17 acres of land, 1/3rd was purchased by Kuttiayappa Gounder S/o Kaithamalai Gounder, who purchased it on 06.04.1958 and the balance 2/3rd undivided share ie 4.12 extent of land was purchased by Chinnathambi Gounder under two sale deeds dated 06.06.1966. Chinnathambi is father of the plaintiffs.Kuttiayappa Gounder is the predecessor-in-title of Defendants 1 to 9. 3.The case of the plaintiffs is that, though the property was purchased by these two persons at different point of time, they were jointly enjoying the property commonly without any partition. While so, on 03.02.2014, the defendants who belong to the branch of Kuttiyappa gounder, divided their share in the suit property among themselves without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs who are from the branch of Chinnathambi Gounder. Knowing the unilateral partition among the descendants of Kuttiayappa Gounder, detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs, who were enjoying the property commonly with the defendants, the suit for partition is laid after causing notice. 4. The 3 rd and 6 th defendants entered appearance through a counsel and contested the suit. Rest of the defendants remained absent and set exparte. 5. In the written statement, apart from plea of non-joinder of all the legal heirs of Kuttiayappa Gounder and improper valuation of the Suit and Court Fees, the 3 defendant, who is the widow of Kaithamalai, the deceased son, Late T.K.Subramaniam, had mainly contended that, ever since the purchase of the property her father in law Kuttiyappa Gounder enjoying the 1/3rd of the suit property in S.No:96 as separate property. S.No 96 was also later sub- divided by metes and bound as S.No 96/3. After the demise of Kuttiyappa Gounder, his only daughter Angammal, who got married in the year 1978 relinquished her share in the property in favour of his four sons namely T.K.Palanisamy, T.K.Periyasamy, T.K. Subramaniam and T.K. Rangasamy. Thereafter, the four sons of Kuttiiyappa Gounder orally divided the property and enjoying 1/4th each. Kist were paid separately and had developed the land of their respective share individually. 6. Thereafter, the four sons of Kuttiiyappa Gounder orally divided the property and enjoying 1/4th each. Kist were paid separately and had developed the land of their respective share individually. 6. T.K.Subramaniam, who was enjoying his share of property without any let or hindrance, died on 23.08.1999 leaving behind his widow and three daughters who are defendants 3 to 6. The ninth defendant in the suit is one of the sons of Kuttiyappa Gounder. On the ill advice of others, the 9 defendant joining hands with his sister Angammal filed suit O.S.No.8 of 2013 for larger share in the property. On the advise of elders, there was compromise among them and the suit was decreed on 12.03.2013. Consequentially, the partition deed dated 03.02.2014 was entered and division of the property recorded. The plaintiffs who are the third parties, have no right to challenge this partition deed entered among the lawful owners of the property, who inherited through Kuttiyappa Gounder. 7. The modified issues framed by the Trial Court are:- 1. Whether the property belonged to the fore-fathers of the parties was already partitioned between the plaintiffs and the defendants?. 2. Whether the Partition Deed dated 03.02.2014 entered between the defendants will bind the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition and separate possession of the 2/3 share in the property in dispute as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of Declaration as prayed for? 5. Whether the suit property has been described properly? 6. To what other reliefs? 8. To prove the case, the plaintiffs examined two witnesses and marked 16 exhibits as Ex A-1 to Ex A-16. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses and24 documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B 24. 9. The Trial Court on considering the evidence held that, the total extent situated in S.No.96/2 and S.No.96/3 to be divided into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds, out of which two shares to be allotted to the plaintiffs. The trial Court also declared the partition deed dated 03.02.2014 as invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. 10. The appeal is on the ground that, the properties purchased by Chinnathambi Gounder and Kuttiyappa Gounder on different dates, with the interval of about 8 years, were never in common enjoyment. The trial Court also declared the partition deed dated 03.02.2014 as invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. 10. The appeal is on the ground that, the properties purchased by Chinnathambi Gounder and Kuttiyappa Gounder on different dates, with the interval of about 8 years, were never in common enjoyment. The property been in enjoyment of the respective purchasers and their descendants separately and kist paid by them for their respective shares in the property. The land was sub-divided and a partition deed entered between the defendants as a consequence of the decree passed in O.S.No.8 of 2013, dated 12.03.2013. Hence, the finding of the Court below is erroneous. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that, without any evidence to show common enjoyment and in contrary to the revenue records like, Adangal (Ex B-9 to Ex B-13), ‘A’ registers of the plaintiffs and the defendants for the respective lands in S.No 96/1, 96/2 and 96/3, which are marked as Exs.B-14 to 16 and the pattas for the respective survey numbers marked as Exs.B-17 to B-21, the Trial Court had decreed the suit granting the relief of partition. 12. The Trial Court after examining the title documents of Chinnathambi marked as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 has rightly noted that only on the Eastern side of the land in R.S.No:96, the cart track is mentioned. After observing so, it had erroneously held that, no public cart track is situated on the eastern side of the plaintiffs' property as found in the photographs Ex.B-22 and Ex.B-23, so without fixing access to the plaintiffs property, partition could not have taken place. The said conclusion is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiffs, who have their property on the western side have access to their land through the panchayat mud road on the Western boundary. For all along the plaintiffs are accessing their land only through the western side. Only after the cart track on the Eastern side been converted as a public road recently and on expanding its width acquiring part of the defendants land, to have access from the public road, the plaintiffs had come forward with an invented story claiming partition of the entire land in S.No.96 as if there was no division of the property, ever since the predecessors in title purchased the property in the year 1958 and 1966 respectively. The suit is filed suppressing the fact that property in S.No.96 sub divided into S.No 96/1,96/2 and 96/3. The property was never in joint enjoyment with the plaintiff. Even assuming the plaintiffs are entitled for the right of access from the Eastern side, the suit prayer ought to have been for easementary right by prescription and not a suit for partition. 13. The Suit is for partition of land purchased by two different persons on different period is ill conceived. Just because the lands purchased by them owned by the same person and the schedule of the property in the sale deed only mentioned 1/3 share, out of 6.17 acres of land, an entire false narrative by the plaintiffs as if there was common enjoyment and no division of property took place, been accepted by the Trial Court ignoring the sub division of the property, issuance of separate patta and Adangal. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that, the revenue records relied by the appellants before the Trial Court are after the suit and not to be relied.The description of the property purchased by Chinnathambi and Kuttiayappa Gounder under the respective sale deeds will establish that the eastern boundary of S.No:96 is the present road, earlier identified as cart track. After sub – division , the road is given S.No: 96/4. The land of the defendants falls in R.S.No: 96/3. This land is on the Eastern side abutting the existing road. On the west the plaintiffs land, R.S.Nos.96/1 and 96/2 is located. If really partition was effected and acted upon as contended by the defendants, there must have been some access for the plaintiffs to the road on the Eastern side. To deny the access, which is preserved under the sale deeds executed by the vendor, the partition deed been entered between the parties without recognising the right of the plaintiffs to have access to the cart track on the eastern side. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the suit declaring the partition deed not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitle for 2/3 share in the S.No.96/1, 96/2 and 96/3. 15. Point for determination: Whether the trial Court erred in holding that the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants were enjoying the suit property jointly or in common. Whether the onus of proving the division through oral partition is on the defendants? 15. Point for determination: Whether the trial Court erred in holding that the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants were enjoying the suit property jointly or in common. Whether the onus of proving the division through oral partition is on the defendants? 16. The plaintiffs claim for partition of the suit property as the legal heirs of Chinnathambi Gounder. The relationship of the plaintiffs with Chinnathambi Gounder proved through the death certificate of Chinnathambi Gounder (Ex.A-3)his wife Valliammal (Ex.A-4) and the legal heir certificate (Ex. A-5). 17. The said Chinnathambi Gounder under Ex.A-1 dated 06.06.1966 had purchased 3.09 acres, out of 6.17 acres in S.No.17 from Ponnusamy Gounder and his sons with specific boundaries. On the same day, under Ex.A-2 Chinnathambi had purchased another 1.03 acres out of 6.17 acres in S.No: 17 from Kaithamalai Gounder. This land is described as 1/6th share held in common by Kaithamalai and his sons. In this sale deed also, the four boundaries are specifically mentioned. In both the deeds, the eastern boundary is shown as cart track running North-South. 18. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that their ancestors were in common enjoyment with the ancestors of the defendants in respect of entire 6.17 acres of land which was later assigned R.S.No.96 and again sub divided into R.S.Nos.96/1,96/2 and 96/3. 19. Whereas the case of the defendants is that under Ex.B-1 on 06.04.1958, Kuttiyappa Gounder purchased 1/6th share (i.e) 2.06 acres out of 12.35 acres of land in SNo:17 from Kaithamalai Gounder and his minor sons. The sale deed got registered at SRO, Uthukuli on 08.04.1958 as document No; 240. Since then the property in enjoyment of the Kuttiappa Gounder. After his demise, his legal heirs entered into partition in respect of the property left behind by Kuttiappa Gounder . The partition reduced into writing on 03.02.2014. The properties were never held in common or in enjoyment jointly along with the plaintiffs. 20. In respect of the suit property, the oldest document placed before this Court is marked as Ex.B1, which is certified copy of the sale deed in favour of Kuttiappa Gounder. The vendor is Kaithamalai Gounder, who on his behalf and on behalf of his minor children, Periyasamy, Subramaniam and Ramasamy had sold 2.06 acres of land out of 12.35 acres in S.No.17. This document reveals that the property been inherited by Kaithamalai Gounder from his father Periyasamy gounder. The vendor is Kaithamalai Gounder, who on his behalf and on behalf of his minor children, Periyasamy, Subramaniam and Ramasamy had sold 2.06 acres of land out of 12.35 acres in S.No.17. This document reveals that the property been inherited by Kaithamalai Gounder from his father Periyasamy gounder. The next document is the sale deeds dated 06.06.1966, which are marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. 21. From Ex.A1, this Court finds that Chinnathambi gounder had purchased 3.09 acres of land, out of 6.17 acres in S.No.17 from Ponnusamy,S/o Muthusamy gounder and Chinnsamy, S/o Ponnusamy gounder for themselves and for minor Ramasamy. In this document, the entire extent of 12.35 acres in S.No.17 been mentioned and the south boundary is shown as the land of Chinnathambi gounder. The second document Ex.A2 is in favour of Chinnathamb gounder sold by Kaithamalai Gounder, S/o Muthusamy gounder on his behalf and on behalf of the minor son Subramani and Ramasamy along with major son Periyasamy gounder. Under this sale deed , 1.03 acres of land which is 1/6 share in 6.17 acres been sold. Thus, from Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the descendants of Chinnathambi gounder, trace the title in respect of 4.12 acres of land. 22. Reconciling the document Ex.B1, which is of the year 1958 along with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, it could be fairly concluded that Muthusamy gounder had two sons one by name Ponnusamy gounder and another by Kaidamamalai gounder. The total extent of land held by them in old S.No.17 to the extent of 6.17 acres and the remaining portion of the land appears to have been allotted to Chennimalai gounder whose property shown as southern boundary in common. Out of 6.17 acres, Kaidamalai gounder had initially sold 2.06 acres to and in favour of the Kuttiappa gounder. Later, he along with his son had sold 1.03 acres to Chinnathambi gounder. The other branch of the Muthusamy gounder, which is Ponnusamy gounder and his son have sold 3.09 acres to Chinnathambi gounder. 23. Thus, out of 6.17 acres, Ponnusamy gounder has alienated 3.09 acres under one sale deed Ex.A1. Whereas Kaidamalai gounder branch had sold their 3.09 acres under two sale deeds. Wherein 1.03 acres have been sold to Chinnathambi and 2.06 acres given to Kuttiappa Gounder. 23. Thus, out of 6.17 acres, Ponnusamy gounder has alienated 3.09 acres under one sale deed Ex.A1. Whereas Kaidamalai gounder branch had sold their 3.09 acres under two sale deeds. Wherein 1.03 acres have been sold to Chinnathambi and 2.06 acres given to Kuttiappa Gounder. Though the Eastern side of the property in common been shown as a cart track, none of the sale documents, it is mentioned that exclusive right of way through the Eastern side cart track. These three documents namely, Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.B1 indicates that Kuttiappa gounder, who is the purchaser prior to the defendants, has come into the possession of the property as early as 1958 to an extent of 2.06 acre in old S.No.17. This is 1/6 share out of larger extent of 12.35 acres. Kaidamalai gounder, S/o Muthusamy gounder had sold his remaining 1.03 acres of land to Chinnathambi in the year 1966. On the same day, Chinnathambi gounder has also purchased 3.09 acres, out of 6.17 acres held by Ponnusamy gounder, S/o Muthusamy gounder. These lands, which were originally in old survey No.17, were subsequently resurveyed and assigned S.No.96. However, By the time, when the suit for partition filed, the land had already been subdivided into S.Nos.96/1, 96/2 and 96/3. The plaintiffs, based on Exs.A1 and A2 which has conferred 3.09 + 1.03 acres of land, purchased from 2 branches of Muthusamy gounder (ie.) his son Ponnusamy gounder 3.09 acres and 1.03 acres of land from Kaithamalai gounder. In the pleadings, noway it is stated how these two properties got blended with the properties held by Kuttiappa gounder under sale deed of the year 1958. 24. That apart, if the property purchased under three different sale deeds by different persons, at different period, had really got blended, there is no necessity for the revenue authority for issuing patta in the name of the different person, in respect of specific extent. While patta in S.Nos.96/1 and 96/2 is given to the branch of Chinnathambi gounder, patta for S.No.96/3 stands in the name of Kuttiappa gounder and his descendants. The FM Sketch, which is marked as Ex.B3 only shows the undivided resurvey number 96 and not the sub divided sketch. While patta in S.Nos.96/1 and 96/2 is given to the branch of Chinnathambi gounder, patta for S.No.96/3 stands in the name of Kuttiappa gounder and his descendants. The FM Sketch, which is marked as Ex.B3 only shows the undivided resurvey number 96 and not the sub divided sketch. On examining the kist receipts and adangal, which are marked as Ex.B4 to Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 to Ex.B13 for patta Nos.17,18 and 19 respectively, the kist been collected jointly from T.K.Subramaniam for pasali from 1394. The certified copy of the patta marked as Ex.B18 and Ex.B21 show that the property of the plaintiffs in S.No.96/2 and 96/1 covered in the new patta No.61 and new patta No.29 respectively. Whereas the patta No.17 alone is in the name of the defendants in respect of the S.No.96/3. If the case of the plaintiffs to be accepted, S.No.96 must stand undivided. Contrarily, the division of the property is clearly found from the revenue record including the adangal starting from pasali 1394 which stands in the individual name of the respective branch and not as joint enjoyment/cultivation. 25. The case of the plaintiff that the properties were jointly enjoyed by the ancestors namely, Chinnathambi gounder and Kuttiappa gounder, does not stand the test of scrutiny. When the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the joint enjoyment along with the defendants, the question of partition will not arise. The Trial Court has presumed that the plaintiffs and the defendants claim right and share in the property through a common ancestor, had shifted the burden on the defendants to prove the division among the members of the defendants. 26. The presumption of joint possession will arise only if the parties trace the title through the common ancestor. The branch of Kuttiappa gounder, got a portion of the property from Kaidaimalai gounder. They have divided the land in their possession as per their partition deed dated 03.02.2014. This partition among the family members and the legal heirs of Kuttiappa gounder is their exclusive property well defined and determined and on the date of partition, it has already been subdivided into R.S.Nos.96/1, 96/2 and 96/3. The plaintiffs trace the title through Chinnathambi gounder the subsequent purchaser, 8 years after purchase. Kaidamalai gounder. The plaintiffs cannot now attempt to put their property with the property of defendants and try to divide it 2:1 ratio by good and bad soil. 27. The plaintiffs trace the title through Chinnathambi gounder the subsequent purchaser, 8 years after purchase. Kaidamalai gounder. The plaintiffs cannot now attempt to put their property with the property of defendants and try to divide it 2:1 ratio by good and bad soil. 27. The trial Court was carried away by the present topography of the land and misunderstood that the plaintiffs have a right of access from the cart track. Since presently there is no access for the plaintiffs lead from East side road, the trial Court had concluded that there was no division effected. 28. In this case, there is neither joint title nor joint enjoyment in common.No evidence is available on record to show that the plaintiffs and the defendants or their ancestors and were in joint enjoyment or possession of the suit property in the recent past. The plaintiffs, if at all, have any grievance over the sub division of S.No.96 as S.Nos.96/1, 96/2 and 96/3, should have raised objection at that point of time. They have allowed this division to come into force atleast from pasali 1401 equal to 1992. The partition deed dated 03.02.2014 among the defendants, who are admittedly the legal heirs of Kuttiappa gounder, gives them every right to divide the property left by Kuttiappa gounder, who died intestate. A neighbouring land owner cannot challenge the division among the legal heirs of Kuttiappa Gounder, stating that excluding them from the partition is invalid. The trial Court for the reasons best known failed to consider the evidence properly and allowed the suit, which is perverse and contrary to the records and evidence. 29. Hence, this Appeal Suit is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.146 of 2014, dated 07.12.2021 stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.