The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession requires actual notice of ouster, especially in cases involving co-ownership and the transfer of property to a stranger. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing the animus to hold property adversely and highlighted the distinction between possession of the entire property and possession of a co-owner's share.

Interesting questions of law were urged by counsel for the appellant before me in this second appeal, but after hearing counsel I do not think it is necessary to advert to them in detail, as the questions which are so urged before me are well settled so far as this court is concerned, and I see no reason to doubt the correctness of the view taken by this court in the earlier decisions and refer this matter to a Division Bench as apparently the counsel wants me to.

2. The suit is for partition. Plaint schedule property belonged to one Charu. Plaintiff and first defendant are daughters of Charu by his first wife, who is not alive. Defendants 2 to 6 are children of Charu by his second wife, Kutty. The suit property is 1 acre 11 cents in extent. Out of this, 42 cents was put in possession of an usufructuary mortgagee by Charu during his lifetime under Ext.D11 of 1102. This was of the southern 42 cents. Charu died on 17-11-1117. The children by the second wife, namely defendants 2 to 6, claiming to be those entitled to the property on the death of Charu executed Ext.D-13 mortgage on 16-12-1119, whereunder they directed the mortgagee to redeem Ext.D-11 and put the mortgagee in possession of the rest of the property. Apparently nether the plaintiff nor the first defendant were associated in the execution of Ext.D13. Nor did the document purport to be on their behalf also. On the same day as that of Ext.D13, the mortgagee who took Ext.D13 released Ext.D11 mortgage under Ext.D15. Later defendants 2 to 6 are seen to have taken a lease from the mortgagee for the suit items and they are said to be in possession and enjoyment under the lease.

3. The claim of the plaintiff to succeed to 1/7th of the assets of Charu and therefore to 1/7th of the suit property succeeded in the trial court with regard to the 42 cents on the southern portion covered by Ext.D11 mortgage. With regard to the rest the plea of adverse possession set up by defendants 2 to 6 was accepted by the court. An appeal was filed against this by both plaintiff as well as defendants 2 to 6. The appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed, while that by defendants 2 to 6 was allowed thus holding that the suit was barred by adverse possession in respect of the entire 1 acre 11 cents. It is therefore that this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

4. The question urged before me is one of adverse possession. According to counsel for the plaintiff, the courts below were in error in holding that there was possession by the co-owners or those claiming under them adverse to the interest of the plaintiff.

5. In the case before me a portion of the property had been put into the possession of a stranger by Charu himself during his lifetime. Necessarily therefore in regard to 42 cents plaintiff who was a co-owner along with defendants 1 to 7 was out of possession all along. The position in regard to the rest of the property is different. Charu died in 1117 and thereafter the co-owners must be deemed to have been in possession. Some of them executed Ext.D13 in 1119 without the junction of the other co-owners and the mortgagee who took Ext.P13 was in possession thereafter. Whether under such circumstances the mortgagee's possession should be considered to be adverse to the plaintiff, who did not join in the execution of the mortgage, is the main question for decision.

6. It is well settled that in the case of co-owners, if any of them is out of possession, that will not by itself amount to adverse possession by the co-owners in possession. Even exclusive possession by some of the co-owners will not operate as possession adverse to those not in possession. Ouster of the co-owners not in possession and notice of such ouster to them will constitute possession by the co-owners adverse and that will be so adverse from the date of such notice. Though this position is well settled, the dispute concerns a situation where the co-owners in possession induct a stranger into possession of the propert