Exclusive possession of one co-owner for a considerable length of time, coupled with the inactivity of the other co-owner, can lead to a presumption of ouster and extinguishment of the rights of the inactive co-owner.

RAMAMURTI, J.:- This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. O.S. No.90 of 1960, Sub Court, Tiruchy, and defendants 3, 4, 7 to 11 and 13 are the appellants, defendants 7 to 13 claiming under an alienation from the grandmother of the third defendant. Defendants 14 to 16 are the alienees through the plaintiff. The District Board of Madura, who was impleaded as the sixth defendant and subsequently exonerated is not concerned in this litigation. The plaintiff, Sheik Meerasa Rowther, filed the suit for partition claiming to be entitled to 237/720th shares in the estate left behind by his father, Sahib Sangheer Khan who died in 1931. The third defendant, who is the grandson (daughter's son) of one Appavoo Rowther, another son of Sangheer Khan, is the main contesting defendant, his defence being that, immediately after Sangheer Khan's death in 1931, there was a family arrangement, in pursuance of which there has been a complete partition by metes and bounds, in which the properties situate in Thamarapadi village in Dindigul taluk have been allotted to the share of Appavoo Rowther aforesaid and the suit for partition as though the estate of Sahib Sangheer Khan remained undivided, was incompetent and misconceived. The trial Court negatived the contentions raised by the defendant and decreed the suit for partition, allotting 287/720th shares to the plaintiff in the suit properties. It is against this judgment that Appeal No.273 of 1964 has been preferred. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship between the parties. The ranks of the parties in the present suit are also mentioned as against their names. As frequent reference will have to be made to an earlier litigation between the parties. O.S. No.29 of 1952, District Munsif's Court, Kulithalai, their ranks in the earlier litigation also are mentioned in the tree.

2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:-

The ancestor of the parties, Sahib Sangheer Khan belonged to Ilankakurichi Village, Kulithalal taluk and died in the year 1931. His estate mainly consisted of dry lands in Chettiapatti Village, Kulithalai taluk, house and shops in the native village of Ilankakurichi, nanja and punja lands situate in Thamarapadi village, Dindigul Taluk and some outstandings, i.e., mortgage debts and promissory note debts, in favour of the deceased. His widow was Villaithayammal who died in the year 1953. Sangheer Khan's eldest son. Sheik Rowther, and two daughters, Pillai Ammal and Amina Bibi pre-deceased their father. The grandson of Sangheer Khan through his pre-deceased son Sheik Rowther is Sheik Mohammed Rowther, the fifth defendant in the suit. Avvammal Bibi, the surviving daughter of Sangheer Khan, is the first defendant. Avvammal's daughter, Jamil a Bibi, is the second defendant. She has married her maternal uncle's son. Sheik Mohamed Rowther aforesaid, the 5th defendant in the action. The last son of Sangheer Khan was Appavoo Rowther who died in the year 1936, leaving behind him his widow Rahima Bibi. They had two daughters, Rafia Bibi who died in 1939 and Syed Meerammal Bibi who died in 1957. The third defendant, minor Ibramsa Rowther is the son of Syed Meerammal Bibi aforesaid, i.e. the grandson of Appavoo Rowther and Rahima Bibi, through their daughter Syed Meerammal Bibi aforesaid. The other defendants are alienees. Villiathayammal conveyed her 1/8th share to which she was entitled in her husband's estate, to the second defendant, her daughter's daughter, under a sale deed dated 21-2-1953. The plaintiff's case is that the remaining 7/8th shares were taken by the plaintiff, his sister Avvammal Bibi (first defendant) and his other brother Appavoo Rowther, the maternal grandfather of the minor third defendant. The plaintiff claims 14/40 shares as the heir of his father and 14/160th shares in the estate of his deceased brother Appavoo, i.e. in all 70/160th shares.

3. Defendants 1, 2, 5 and 12 remained ex parte. The seventh defendant is an alienee of certain items o