The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific pleading and proof of ouster and the intention to possess in adverse possession cases, as well as the principle that possession by one co-owner benefits other co-owners and that patta does not confer title but only proves possession.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiffs animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 22.01.2008 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vandavasi in O.S.No.374 of 1995. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Directing the division of the suit properties into 4 equal shares and allot 3 such shares to the plaintiffs and directing the possession of the same to the plaintiffs through Court;

(ii) Directing the defendants to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs from the date of Suit up to the of delivery of possession;

(iii) Restraining the 1st defendant by a decree of permanent injunction not to alienate to the defendants 2 and 3 herein anybody else not more than the 14 share of her husband the deceased Mannar Pillai."

(b) The written statement was filed resisting the suit.

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues.

(d) The second plaintiff-Chinnammal examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The defendants 1 and 3 examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit for partition allotting 1/4th share in favour of each of the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 as the first plaintiff already died and one other 1/4 share in favour of Malliga/D1 and her children even though the children are not eo nomine parties in the party arrayed.

(f) Challenging the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appeal was filed. Whereas, the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the original suit.

3. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 as appellants filed this Second Appeal on various grounds inter alia to the effect that the appellate Court reversed the reasoned findings of the trial Court and simply took it for granted that the exchange deed conferred absolute right over D1's husband-Mannar Pillai; and whereby Mannar Pillai acquired as though prescriptive title over the suit property and that the alienation made by Mannar Pillai in favour of the third parties could not be found fault with.

4. The following substantial questions of law are found suggested in the grounds of appeal:

"(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Courts is correct in reversing the well considered finding of the trial court that the properties obtained under the exchange deed are joint family properties and appellants herein are entitles to partition?

(2) Whether the appellate Court is right in finding that the plaintiffs have not come forward with a prayer to set aside the Exchange Deed dated 12.12.1980 while rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs for partition when in fact the appellants are not parties to the said transaction and the properties covered under the exchange in effect belonging to the father of the appellants?

(extracted as such)

5. My learned Predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in observing that the suit properties are not joint family properties?

(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in determining that the plaintiffs should have prayed for setting aside the Exchange Deed dated 12.12.1980? (extracted as such)

6. Heard both sides.

7. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the proper discussion would run thus:

Indubitably and indisputably, one Potti Pillai acquired certain properties as per the sale deeds Ex.A3 dated 04.10.1954, Ex.A4 dated 26.12.1957 and Ex.A5 dated 07.11.1959. He died in the year 1965 leaving