The registration of a document is only a constructive notice to a subsequent acquirer of the property or interest, and it cannot be considered as a notice to the entire world. Open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one co-owner to the knowledge of the other co-owner, is necessary to constitute ouster.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S.No.9 of 1997, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, dated 22.03.1996 in O.S.No.287 of 1991, were confirmed.

2. The appellants are defendants 1, 3, 5 and 7; the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 2, 4 6 and 8. Respondents 5 to 8 are the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. To avoid confusion, the parties are hereinafter described as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiff (1st respondent herein) filed the suit in O.S.No.287 of 1991 against the defendants, numbering 7, for declaration, partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties and also for future profits. According to the plaintiff, her father Kamaludeen had two wives and she is the only child born in 1943 through the first wife, who died in 1944. Thereafter, Kamaludeen married the sister of the plaintiff's mother as his second wife, viz., Arabia Beevi, the 1st defendant and they have six children, who are defendants 2 to 7. Kamaludeen, during his lifetime, acquired lot of properties from his earnings and he celebrated the marriages of the plaintiff as well as the 2nd defendant and he died in 1963, leaving cash, jewellery of the plaintiff's mother, valuable movables, immovable properties etc. Soon after his death, his mother also passed away. So, the plaintiff and the defendants are the only legal heirs of the deceased Kamaludeen.

4. The plaintiff after her marriage settled at her husband's house at Kollumangudy and she often visited her father's house while he was alive. After his demise, the 1st defendant was managing all the properties and the plaintiff visited her father's house and she and her husband helped in performing the marriage of the 3rd defendant. Since the funds as well as the income from the estate of the 1st defendant was not adequate, the 1st defendant decided to sell a portion of about 2 acres and the plaintiff also consented for the same and from the sale proceeds, the marriages of other defendants were celebrated. Thereafter, the attitude of the 1st defendant began to change and she alienated some of the valuable properties of the estate without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff demanded partition of her share and though the 1st defendant accepted for the same, finally she has not complied with the demand. The 1st defendant is entitled to 1/8th or 9/72 share and the rest has to be divided between the plaintiff and other defendants. Hence, she filed the suit.

5. The case of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants and filed a written statement stating that it is not correct to state that the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with the other defendants. The plaintiff's marriage has been conducted at the heavy expenses from and out of the sale proceeds of the properties of the defendants. At the time of marriage, the properties worth more than her share have been sold since the family of her husband is affluent and very rich and as such, she has no share to be claimed in the suit properties and she must be deemed to have relinquished her share. After marriage, the plaintiff developed a sort of superiority complex and on account of economic imbalance between her and the defendants, the plaintiff gradually lost her touch with the defendants' family and abandoned the properties and she has never been in participation of the rents and profits from the suit lands. The 1st defendant has not only been in exclusive possession and absolute enjoyment of the properties but there has also been in open and unequivocal denial of the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. In fact, the 1st defendant had alienated an extent of 0.90 cents of nanja lands in R.S.No.2