IMPORTANT POINTS
If the person who was ousted subsequently came into possession of property or continued his possession as a co-owner without any disturbance even after the assertion of adverse title by way of ouster, the ouster can only be considered as incomplete and ineffective.

JUDGMENT :

It is a case wherein the defendants 1 and 2, the co-owners, claimed adverse title based on two documents of ouster Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the demand notice for partition of the year 1979 issued by the plaintiff to the 5th defendant, to which, the 5th defendant replied under Ext.B2 denying right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the property and claimed exclusive right, title and interest over the property. But no suit for partition or for any declaration instituted within a period of twelve years from the date of receipt of Ext.B2 reply. Ext.B2 reply was raised as an act of 'ouster' asserting exclusive right, title and interest by the 5th defendant over the property against the co-ownership right claimed by the plaintiff.

2. The essential questions came up for consideration in this appeal are :

(1) What actually amounts to an act of “ouster” in the matter of co-ownership property and claim of perfection of adverse title ?

(2) Whether there would be a valid 'ouster', unless coupled with disturbance of possession from that of a co-ownership to adverse ?

(3) Whether such exclusive possession in furtherance of the ouster should be maintained for the required period of twelve years so as to perfect title by adverse possession ?

(4) What would be the legal impact of continuance of undisturbed possession of co-ownership property after the act of 'ouster' and whether there is any change in the legal position when there is subsequent interference to the possession during the period of inchoate right by the co-owner against whom an act of 'ouster' is imposed ?

3. Issuance of a demand notice for partition which was not pursued further for a long period more than twelve years was taken into consideration by the Apex Court in Govindammal v. R.Perumal Chettiar and Ors ( AIR 2007 SC 204) so as to ascertain whether it would constitute an 'ouster' and held that it is not sufficient to show that the co-sharer has lost her right by adverse possession simply because she gave notice claiming partition of the suit properties and possession and did not pursue the matter further. It was further held in that decision that the person setting off ouster is bound to show that he did set up an adverse or independent title during the period which was beyond the statutory period of twelve years. But in that case, there was no express denial by issuing a reply notice in writing. What is involved in that case is that the person, who had issued notice demanding partition not pursued further for a long period of more than twelve years and the question came up for consideration was whether it would constitute an 'ouster' for perfecting title by adverse possession.

4. In the instant case, there is an express denial of right, title and interest of plaintiff by the 5th defendant by issuing a reply notice, Ext.B2. No suit was filed for partition for a long period of more than twelve years after the receipt of Ext.B2. Hence Ext.B2 raised as an 'ouster' against the co-owner, the plaintiff. But the plaintiff was in actual possession of the property even after the issuance of Ext.B1 demand for partition and Ext.B2 reply issued denying his right, title and interest over the property. There is no disturbance to the possession held by the plaintiff over the property even after the issuance of Exts.B1 and B2. But the plaintiff continued his possession over the property by residing in the house situated therein. It is the well established principle that possession held by one of the co-owners should be and must be for and on behalf of all co-owners and there cannot be any acquisition of adverse title unless there is clear 'ouster'. The expression 'ouster' stands for an assertion of right, title or interest over the property in derogation of the other persons having title over the property including a co-owner and interested persons thereof. In order to bring out an 'ouster', it should be a one openly expressing the animus to hold the property in derogation of