The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the partition deed as a family arrangement, entitling the daughters to a share in the properties, and the rejection of the defendants' claim of ouster and adverse possession.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.94 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Nagpattinam are the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming half share or in the alternative 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The case of the plaintiffs was that the properties originally belonged to Vethaiya Nadar, great grand father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff. The said Vethaiya Nadar had two wives by name Rajammal and Janakiammal and he died in the year 1951 intestate leaving behind his two widows and a son and another daughter through the 2nd wife Janakiammal and two daughters through the 1st wife Rajammal. Under a registered partition deed dated 26.9.1958 the two daughters and their children divided the properties and Rajammal and her two daughters Govindammal and Jegathambal formed one part and Janakiammal and her son and her daughter formed another part and under the said partition, 1.28 = acres was allotted to the share of Rajammal and her two daughters and other properties were allotted to the share of Janakiammal and her children. The 1st plaintiff is the husband of Govindammal and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of Govindammal and the 1st defendant is Jagadambal, 2nd defendant is her husband and the defendants 3 to 6 are their children. The plaintiffs therefore filed the suit for partition stating that under the partition deed dated 26.9.1958, Rajammal, Govindammal and Jegdambal got 1/3rd share each in the properties and after the death of Rajammal her 1/3rd share was devolved upon her daughters and therefore her daughters Govindammal and Jegadambal are entitled to half share each. During the life time of Rajammal she executed a settlement deed dated 12.12.1973 settling 1.28 = acres in favour of Jegadambal and her children and on 12.5.1982 she executed another settlement deed settling 43 cents in favour of her daughter Jegadambal. According to the plaintiffs, Jegadambal had no power to settle the entire properties and even assuming that she is entitled to settle her share, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties.

3. The defendants contended that as per the partition deed the daughters of Rajammal did not get any right over the suit properties and they were mentioned only as eonominee parties as they have no right over the properties and the properties were enjoyed by Rajammal and as an absolute owner Rajammal executed settlement deed in favour of Jegadambal and her daughter under Ex.A2 in the year 1973 and thereafter under Ex.A4 in the year 1982 settled 43 cents of properties in favour of Jegadambal and the sons of Jegadambal namely the defendants 3 to 5 have also put up construction in the suit properties and they are enjoying the same and they have also prescribed title by ouster and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the properties.

4. The trial Court partly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share excluding the three houses constructed by the defendants 3 to 5. Against the Judgement and Decree, the defendants filed the appeal regarding 1/3rd share allotted to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs filed Cross Appeal against the exclusion of three houses and the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the Cross Appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, this Second Appeal.

5. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of this Second Appeal by this Court:

(1) Whether the learned Additional District Judge was right in construing Ex.A1 as not conferring any right on Govindammal, when the document specifically grants a right in her favour?

(2) Whether the learned Additional District Judge was right in rejecting the plaintiffs claim on the ground of adverse possession when the defendants had not proved ouster as required by law?

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that under Ex.A1 Raj