Ouster has to be proved by co-owner.

The substantial questions of law raised for decision in the second appeal are as follows:

"(1) Whether the widow governed by Nanjilnad Vellala Regulation No.6 of 1101 ME (1926), who has no right to a share in the properties of her deceased husband but having come into possession of one out of 18 items of the husband's property and having continued to possess the same property even after a partition suit filed in 1942 by one of the legal heirs of her deceased husband in respect of only 18 items of properties can be said to possess the present suit property, namely, the one item and acquire a right of adverse possession or prescribed title by way of adverse possession as against all the legal heirs of her deceased husband?

(2) Whether a Hindu female who was only entitled to maintenance and not to possession obtained possession such possession can be held to be adverse to those entitled to possession so as to enable her to prescribe for an absolute title unless they could show that the possession was the result of some arrangement between them?

(3) Whether the present suit for partition is hit by Section 11, Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the earlier partition in O.S.No.66/1117 (1942)?"

2. The parties are related as follows:

There is one Madhavan Pillai. His son is Velu Pillai, who died in 1928. His wife is Deviya Pillai alias Chellammal. One of their sons is Madhavan Pillai who died in 1957. His wife is Bagavathi, the third defendant in the suit and their children are defendants 4 to 8. Subramaniam, the first defendant, is another son of Velu Pillai and Deviya Pillai alias Chellammal. Their third son is Krishnamurthy, who died in 1948. Krishnamurthy's son Velu Pillai is the present plaintiff. The fourth born daughter of Velu Pillai is Peruma Pillai, the second defendant. Peruma Pillai died in 2000. The last born daughter of Velu Pillai Neelaka Pillai alias Sarojini Amma is the ninth defendant in the suit.

3. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property belonged to Velu Pillai, his grandfather, and that he is entitled to 1/5th share as the only heir of Krishnamurthy.

4. Defendants 1 and 3 to 8 remained ex parte. The second defendant supported the case of the plaintiff and further stated that she is entitled to have her 1/5th share and that she is paying Court fee in respect of the same.

5. The ninth defendant who contested the case filed a written statement to the following effect:

She is the full and absolute owner and in possession of the suit property in continuation of the possession of her predecessors in interest for more than 40 years. Patta stands in her name and she is paying tax. The plaint property never vested in the children of Velu Pillai on his death. It stood registered in the name of a stranger from whom Neelaka Pillai Deviya Pillai alias Chellammal got possession of the property and she was in possession of the same for more than 40 years and perfected title over the same by her adverse possession against the interest of all concerned. She was not given sufficient maintenance taking into consideration her status as the widow of Velu Pillai and the amount of wealth to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. None of the heirs of the deceased Velu Pillai is entitled to the suit property. The suit property was rightly excluded in the partition suit in O.S.No.66/1117 on the file of the District Court, Nagercoil. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 are estopped from laying claim to the plaint property. Madhavan Pillai has another heir, his mother Neelaka Pillai alias Chellammal and she is entitled to an equal share in the properties of Madhavan Pillai, son of Velu Pillai. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 to 8 cannot claim any share. The right, if any of the plaintiff and defendants has been extinguished by the adverse possession of the ninth defendant and the adverse possession of her predecessor in interest. The suit is barred by Section 11 and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sui