JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the one-fourth share belonging to defendants 1 and 2 in the properties described in Schedule-A belonging to the joint family of which they were members, from one Abdul Rahiman Rowther. This Abdul Rahiman Rowther purchased the one-fourth share belonging to defendants 1 and 2 in the Court auction sale on 20-11-1944, and he took symbolical delivery of the properties on 19-9-1947. On 10-12-1958, the plaintiff purchased the suit properties. It appears that subsequently there has been a partition in the family of the defendants, under which the B Schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed the

suit out of which the present appeal arises for partition and possession of one-fourth share in the A Schedule properties, or, in the alternative for the 'B' Schedule properties being allotted to him on 14-7-1959. The trial Court held that the symbolical delivery obtained by the plaintiff's vendor was not valid in law and that therefore it would not interrupt the adverse possession of the defendants. Following the decision in Thani Chettiar v. Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar, (1955) 1 Mad LJ 414 i