1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff-Dhanalakshmi Ammal against the judgment and decree dated 11-10-1979 in O.S. No. 347 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.

2. The case of the plaintiff/Appellant before the lower Court is that the properties set out in the plaint ‘A’ schedule were all the absolute properties of one Joseph De. Gonzaga. For the sake of convenience, Joseph De. Gonzaga is referred to as Joseph in the plaint. Joseph was employed as a senior clerk in the Finger Print Bureau attached to crime Department at Indo-China, and he was serving in Saigon in such capacity and retired in the year 1950 on a salary of Rs. 441 and settled down at Manjakuppam, Cu ddalore. He had considerable properties which are set out in a Schedule. Joseph is a much married man. First he married one Viyakula Mari also known as Arumaikannu about the year 1914 at Saigon, which was also duly registered and as per the formalities adumbrated for the French Citizens. Through his first wife referred to above, he had five children and now only defendants 1 and 2 are alive, and the rest died long ago. The said Joseph married for a second time one Roger about the year 1927 at Pondicherr y, and through her, he begot the third defendant. Even prior to his death, at ripe old age, the said Joseph appears to have married one Muslim woman and also a Harijan. Of course, the subsequent marriages of Hindu and Muslim for the third and fourth time are illegal and invalid in law. Apart from that, they have no issue and they were also dead. Both the first defendant and the third defendant sold away all the properties comprised in ‘A’ schedule as if they are the sole persons entitled to such propert ies conveyed by them exclusively and ignored the share of the second defendant. Thus, there was a dispute between the first defendant and the third defendant as to who is really the legitimate son entitled to convey the properties. There was a competition that ensued to substantiate a sale transaction effected by the third defendant in a prior litigation in O.S. No. 229 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Cuddalore, between the purchaser from the third defendant and the purchaser from the first defendant. The fourth defendants husband and father of defendants 5 to 11 was one Govindaraju, and Govindaraju was the purchaser from the third defendant, while the plaintiff/Appellant herein is the purchaser from the third defendant. The said Joseph died on, 15-10-1956. Admittedly, defendants 1 to 3 are all French Citizens and Roman Catholic and are governed by the French Civil Laws. Under French Law, in the case of intestate succession, when the deceased leaves children, whether of the same or of different marriages, the children succeed equally without distinction of age or sex. Thus, on the death of Joseph on 15-10-1956, when succession opened, the children of late Joseph alive are defendants 1 to 3, and therefore, each of them are entitled to one-third share in all the properties of late Joseph. Thus, each of them are in the position of co-sharers or co owners, and they take as tenants-in-common. Under French Law, therefore, there can be no adverse possession against co-sharers and no amount of possession by a co-sharer, much less by a third party, can ripe into one of adverse possession. Possession by third party under French Law is deemed to be on behalf of the sharer and therefore, even though if a sharer who has not joined in the sale and is out of possession yet, the purchaser cannot, under French Law, prescribe adverse possession in respect of the share belonging to non-alienating co-sharer. The plaintiff/appellant states that she has purchased the properties set out in ‘B’ schedule, which are items, 1 to 4 in ‘A’ schedule from the first defendant under a registered sale deed date