Family arrangement / Panchayat partition – Plea of – Burden of proof A party pleading prior partition or family arrangement must prove the same by reliable evidence. Mere assertion that a Panchayat was held and a muchalika was executed is insufficient unless the document itself or other convincing evidence of such arrangement is produced. (Paras 6–7) Family arrangement – Non-production of document – Adverse inference Where the defendant relies on a written family arrangement (muchalika) but fails to produce the document before the Court, and no documentary proof of payment or settlement is produced, the Court is justified in rejecting the plea of earlier partition. (Paras 6–7) Evidence – Oral testimony without documentary support Oral testimony of witnesses regarding payment of money or execution of family arrangement cannot be accepted in the absence of supporting documentary evidence when such documents are expected to exist. (Para 7)

advocatemmmohan

Partition – Daughter claiming share in father’s property – Absence of will

Where properties were purchased by the father and no testamentary disposition was executed by him, on his death the children succeed equally and each heir becomes entitled to an equal share in the property. (Para 6)

---

Family arrangement / Panchayat partition – Plea of – Burden of proof

A party pleading prior partition or family arrangement must prove the same by reliable evidence. Mere assertion that a Panchayat was held and a muchalika was executed is insufficient unless the document itself or other convincing evidence of such arrangement is produced. (Paras 6–7)

---

Family arrangement – Non-production of document – Adverse inference

Where the defendant relies on a written family arrangement (muchalika) but fails to produce the document before the Court, and no documentary proof of payment or settlement is produced, the Court is justified in rejecting the plea of earlier partition. (Paras 6–7)

---

Evidence – Oral testimony without documentary support

Oral testimony of witnesses regarding payment of money or execution of family arrangement cannot be accepted in the absence of supporting documentary evidence when such documents are expected to exist. (Para 7)

---

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference with findings of fact

Under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. When the First Appellate Court properly appreciated evidence and concluded that the alleged family arrangement was not proved, no substantial question of law arises. (Para 7)

---

Result

Second Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff confirmed. (Para 8)