Presumption of ouster due to exclusive possession for long period of time.

First defendant is the appellant.

.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit property belonged to Seeni Ammal who died intestate in the year 1969 leaving the defendants 1 to 8 and the plaintiff as her legal representatives. The first defendant is her son. Plaintiff and the second defendant are the children of Annalakshmi Ammal one of the deceased daughter of Seeni Ammal. Defendants 3, 7 and 8 are the daughters of Seeni Ammal. Defendants 4 to 6 are the children of Ramu Ammal another deceased daughter of Seeni Ammal. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The plaintiff and other defendants were having regard and respect for the first defendant. The first defendant was residing in item No.3 of the suit properties and was managing item Nos.1 and 2. He was paying the due share of the income from those properties to the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 8. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/12th share. The defendants 1, 3, 7 and 8 are entitled to 2/12th share. Second defendant is entitled to 1/12th share while the defendants 4 to 6 are entitled to 2/12th share. The first defendant had sold 17 cents of item No.1 of the suit properties to defendants 9 to 11, who are aware of the right of the plaintiff and other co-sharers. The sales in their favour are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession of his 1/ 12th share by issuing notice. The first defendant has sent a reply stating that Seeni Ammal has gifted the properties to him during her lifetime and he is in enjoyment of the same. Hence, the suit.

3. The first defendant in his written statement contends as follows: The first defendant is the only son of Seeni Ammal and were provided with jewellery and other gifts as per the custom. The first defendant has spent for all those marriages and for subsequent welfare of his sisters. The plaintiff lost his mother at a very young age. The plaintiff and his sisters were brought up by the first defendant and Seeni Ammal. Since, the father had not provided for the marriage of his daughter, the first defendant has married the second defendant at his cost. Seeni Ammal, out of love and affection towards her son and gratitude, for the sense of duty of the first defendant. In incurring expenses towards the sisters, has gifted the suit property to the first defendant to the knowledge of her daughters and their children, in 1964. The first defendant has transferred the registry in his name and was treating the same as his own property, paying taxes, etc. He had remodelled and invested heavily in construction of the suit property. Plaintiff was approving them as an onlooker all the time. The first defendant has perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession and ouster. The suit is barred by limitation. Seeni Ammal died in the year 1969. The first defendant has improved the property and invested the suit property. The plaintiff has therefore no right over the suit property. There was no common enjoyment and no payment of any shares to the other heirs of Seeni Ammal. The suit is vexatious. It is liable to be dismissed.

4. Defendants 4, 5, 6 and 8 have submitted to the decree and prayed for a preliminary decree for partition being passed.

5. The 9th defendant in his written statement contends as follows: The first defendant was in absolute possession and exclusive enjoyment of the suit property especially item No. 1 of the same. He had purchased 17 cents in item No.1 of the suit property along with the defendants 10 and 11 as bona fide purchasers for value without the knowledge of the right and interest of the plaintiff if any. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8 never raised any protest or objection either before or after purchase by these defendants. They are estopped from questioning these defendants’ purchase. The defendants 9 to 11 are bona fide purchasers for value and the suit against them is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the above pleadings, the learne