The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicable law for succession to immovable property is determined by the location of the property, and adverse possession and prescriptive title require ouster and hostile animus.

The defendants 3,4,6,7 and 8 are the appellants. Suit was for partition.

2. Remold acquired 9 cents of property in Fort Cochin and constructed building No.XI/594. He had five children - 3 sons and 2 daughters; Bastian, Joseph, Agnes, Cicily and George. Except Joseph and Agnes all others are dead. Joseph and Agnes are respectively defendants land 2. Plaintiffs are the children of Cicily. Defendants 4 and 5 are the children of Bastian. Third defendant is his widow, but after his death she married his brother, George. Defendants 6 to 9 were born in that wedlock. Plaintiffs claimed partition as per S.40 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 claiming 1/5th share. According to the plaintiffs, the children of Remold are entitled to 1/5 the share each in the said property.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed ajoint written statement and the 5th defendant filed a separate written statement admitting the plaint allegation except the allegation regarding commission of waste in the property.

4. The contesting defendants are defendants 3,4,6,7 and 8. They contended that the law applicable to Remold is the Cochin Christian Succession Act (Act VI of 1097) and not the Indian Success ion Act. On that basis they contended his daughters are not entitled to any share in his estate. They denied the allegation that Remold died intestate, and contended that as per the arrangement it was decided that his whole property should belong to the third and fourth defendants and that they should maintain and look after the minors. They contended alternatively that, defendants 3 and 4 alone are in exclusive possession of the property and have prescribed title to the property. Consequently others are not entitled to any share in the property. It is also contended, in the event of partition the building constructed by fourth defendant has to be allotted along with his share.

5. The Lower Court did not accept the claim that Remold did not the intestate; the claim of prescriptive title by defendants 3 and 4, and the contention that the succession to the estate of Remold is governed by the Cochin Christian Succession Act were also found against. On the other hand the Court held-that the succession to the estate of Remold is governed by the provisions in the Indian Succession Act 1925. The court passed a preliminary decree for partition, but held that building No.XI/721 is not partible.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the lower court that the succession is not governed by the Cochin Christian Succession Act and the finding that defendants 3 and 4 have not perfected title by prescription. There is no evidence oral or documentary to show that Remold did not the intestate. The finding as regards that is not questioned.

7. Thus the two questions that survive for determination are as to what is the provision that would govern the succession to the estate of Remold and whether right of the co-owners is barred by adverse possession by defendants 3,4,6,7 and 8.

8. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that, the law applicable is The Cochin Christian Succession Act (Act VI of 1097). On the other hand the respondent contended that succession to Remolds estate is governed by the Indian Succession Act (Act 39 of 1925). In Mary Roy and others v. State of Kerala and others (1986 KLT 508) the Supreme Court held that as per S.6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 The Travancore Christian Succession Act (Regulation II of 1092) was repealed as the same was a corresponding law within the meaning of S.6 of the Act 39 of 1925. The ratio of the decision in Mary Roy's case would lead to the conclusion that on the appointed day the Cochin Christian Succession Act was also repealed by S.6 Part B States (Laws) Act 1951. The appointed day under S.3 of the said Act was 1st April 1951. Therefore the repeal could take effect only on that day. As per the evidence of P. W.1 Remold died in 1950, at that time the Cochin Christian Succession Act was in force.

9. In de