In a partition suit, the surrender of rights by one co-owner in favour of another co-owner, ouster of one co-owner by another co-owner, and adverse possession of one co-owner against another co-owner can be established by cogent evidence, and the concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the appellate Court on these issues will not be interfered with in a Second Appeal unless there is an error of law.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned II Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in A.S.No. 286 of 1992 confirming the judgment of the learned 12th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S.No. 6458 of 1986. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiffs prayed for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds into five equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs, for past mesne profits from January, 1986 to June, 1986 at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem and for future mesne profits at the same rate.

.3. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is the son of one C. Rajagopalachari who died in November, 1941 leaving behind him his widow Thangammal, his son the first defendant and four daughters, the defendants 2 to 4 and the mother of the plaintiffs 2 to 6. The said Rajagopalachari out of his own self earnings purchased the suit property and constructed a house and he had also inherited lands at Karai village, Kancheepuram. The first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of all the suit properties namely, the house and ground at Gopalapuram, more fully described in the schedule. The plaintiffs were under the bona fide impression that the first defendant will partition the properties and hand over the possession. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Saroja, one of the daughters of C. Rajagopalachari and Thangammal. Saroja died on 16. 1971 and the plaintiffs are entitled to one-fifth share of Saroja. The suit property is in possession of the lessees and the first defendant was giving the share of his sisters till December, 1985. However, for unknown reasons he refused to pay the share of the income since January, 19 86. Therefore, a lawyer’s notice dated 20.3.1986 was issued demanding partition. The defendants sent a reply notice on 23. 1986 containing false allegations. According to the plaintiffs, Saroja never consented for transfer of the properties in the name of the first defendant. The first defendant had transferred the patta and registered his name, as if he was the sole surviving legal heir. The sons and daughters of the first defendant are well settled in life, according to the plaintiffs. It is further contended that merely because the first defendant had changed the name in the revenue records and patta that will not disentitle the plaintiffs of their share of the properties left behind by their grandfather and grand mother. The plaintiffs are not aware of the lands at Kancheepuram and they reserve their rights to include whenever they got the particulars.

.4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it was contended that it is no doubt true that Thangammal died in the year 1962. The first defendant further contends that she did not leave any property behind her to be inherited by her heirs. Soon after the death of C. Rajagopalachari in December, 1941. Thangammal surrendered her interest in the estate in favour of the first defendant being her only son and the nearest reversioner. Thereafter, the first defendant applied to the Corporation of Madras, for the transfer of ownership in his name and to the Tahsildar, Madras Taluk, for the transfer of Revenue Registry in his name. The ownership of the suit house was amended in the Municipal Registry by order dated 212. 1942 and the patta was transferred by order dated 7. 1943. The transfer of ownership was done only after due enquiry and with full knowledge and consent of late Thangammal. Eversince the date of surrender, the first defendant had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment. He has been paying the property tax, kist, urban land tax and other public charges and was dealing with the property as his own exclusive property. Neither Thangammal during her life time, nor late Saroja, the mother of the plaintiffs 2 to 6 and defendants 2 to 6 nor the plaintiffs 2 to 6 had ever claimed any right or share or asserted their own righ