P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. Defendants 1 to 10 and 12 in a suit for partition are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The property sought to be partitioned belonged to one Velu. Velu died in the year 1978. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of Velu and on the death of Velu, the suit property devolved on him and Madhavan, another son of Velu, being the surviving legal representatives of Velu. Defendants 1 to 10 are the successors of Madhavan. The plaintiff claimed partition of his one half right over the suit property. The defendants contended that the plaintiff is not the son of Velu and as such, he is not entitled to any share in the suit property. Alternatively, the defendants also contended that if at all the plaintiff has any right over the suit property, the same is lost by adverse possession. The Trial Court rejected the case of the defendants and decreed the suit. The Appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the evidence, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendants referred to above, who are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the courts below have thus come up in this Second Appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants.

3. T