Partition of joint family properties requires severance of joint ownership and actual division by metes and bounds, resulting in conversion of joint ownership into ownership in severalty.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. :- This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The respondent is the plaintiff. The suit for partition had come to be filed by the plaintiff on the following basis. The suit properties of an extent of 14.25 acres in S. Nos. 371, 373 and 374 of Iluppanatham village originally belonged to two sets of owners, namely, one half to Vellayappa and the other half to Angappa, the father of the plaintiff. The undivided interest of the branches of Vellayappa had been sold in favour of the defendants. For the sake of convenient enjoyment the parties have been in possession of distinct portions. But there was no division by metes and bounds.

2. The defendants contested the suit stating in substance that there was in fact a partition arrangement entered into and effectuated several years back and only as per the partition, the parties are in possession of specific portions deliniated by permanent ridges and further the defendants have improved the portion in their occupation and have deepened the well at a cost of more than Rs. 20,000. The defendants also pleaded ouster and perfection of title by adverse possession.

3. The plaintiff filed a reply statement contending that the well in S. No. 371 is a common well and that there has been no ouster as contended by the defendants. The plaintiff denied that the defendants did improvements to the tune of Rs. 20,000.

4. On the basis of the pleadings put forth by the parties the court below formulated as many as ten issues as follows :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition on the basis of co-ownership of the properties ?

2. Whether the defendants are in possession of any specific portions of properties as contended by them ?

3. Whether the well in exclusive possession of the defendants is a common well as claimed by the plaintiff ?

4. Whether the well alleged to belong to the defendants have been deepened in the manner claimed in the written statement ?

5. Whether the claim of the plaintiff that he is in constructive possession of the entire suit property in spite of separate specific enjoyment of share is true ?

6. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?

7. Whether the defendants have installed underground pipes as alleged in the written statement ?

8. Whether the plaintiff has any right in the disputed well ?

9. Whether there has been any ouster of the plaintiff as alleged ?

10. To what relief ?

5. The parties placed their evidence oral and documentary and that was the subject matter of assessment by the Court below and thereafter the Court below on issue No. 1 held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition on the basis of co-ownership of the properties; on issue No. 2 that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the well and the extent north of the dividing UDHI I; on issue No. 3 that though the well in the northern portion is a common well, it has been in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants only; on issue No. 4, that the defendants have deepened the well in the northern portion; on issue No. 5, that as between co-sharers the possession of one co-sharer in law is the possession of all co-sharers and hence the claim of the plaintiff is sustainable; on issue No. 7, that the defendants have installed underground pipes as stated in their written statement; on issue No. 8 that there being no partition by metes and bounds the plaintiff as well as the defendants

have rights in both the wells though it may be that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the northern well and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the southern well; and on issue No. 9 that there has been no ouster of the plaintiff as claimed by the defendants. On issue No. 6, the Court below has stated that the suit is properly valued as regards the court-fee and jurisdiction and answered the question in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, the Court below held