1. “Whether a co-owner, without pleading and proving that his possession was 'nee vi nee clam nee precario' i.e. peaceful, open and continuous, for the statutory period, can succeed in non-suiting the plaintiff ?” - is the issue to be considered in this second appeal.

This is not a case of the father denying the right to property to the son, but it is vice versa. This is a case where, though the property stands in the name of the father, which is admittedly a joint family property, the son denies the right of the father to claim his share of the property on the plea of ouster. Without the imperative pleadings and evidence regarding ouster, how far the plea of the son is maintainable is the issue to be decided.

2. The father has filed the suit both against his son / vendor, the first defendant, and defendants 2 to 5 / the purchasers of item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit property (from the first defendant alone), claiming half-share in the entire 8 items of the suit property. A preliminary decree was passed in accordance with the claim made in the plaint. Challenging the same, first appeal was filed by defendants 2 to 5. The first appeal was dismissed and thereby, the judgment of