The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.110 of 1999 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. The defendants 1 to 6 are the appellants. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The respondents 6 to 9 are the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent, who was the seventh defendant in the suit. The third respondent is the 8th defendant. The 4th respondent, who was the 9th defendant had died during the pendency of the appeal and the 5th respondent was recorded as the legal representatives of the 4th respondent.

2. The Cross Objection has been filed by the defendants 8 to 10, claiming 1/5th share in the suit properties.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 1999 to declare that she is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit property and for separate possession in respect of her 1/5th share and for other reliefs.

4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

According to the plaintiff, she and the defendants 7 and 8 are the daughters of one Kanagasabai Nadar and Thirupurasundari Ammal.

The said Kanagasabai Nadar died intestate on 22.05.1973 and his wife died on 28.11.1989. The said Kanagasabai Nadar and Thirupurasundari Ammal had one son and four daughters viz., Vellaithambi Nadar (son) and daughters viz., Shantha (plaintiff), Soundaravalli (7th defendant), Prema (8th defendant) and Sarojini, who had died prior to the filing of the suit. The defendants 9 and 10 are the legal representatives of the deceased Sarojini. The 9th defendant had died on 06.07.2008 leaving behind the 10th defendant as his surviving legal representative.

5. Vellaithambi Nadar, who is the son of Kanagasabai Nadar had died on 05.02.1996 leaving behind the defendants 1 to 6 as his legal representatives. The 7th defendant Soundaravalli had died on 24.11.2008 leaving behind the respondents 6 to 9 as her legal representatives.

6. According to the plaintiff, Kanagasabai Nadar was allotted the suit property in the suit in O.S.No.655 of 1921 on the file of High Court of Madras by decree dated 25.04.1941. They are the absolute property of the above Kanagasabai Nadar and the income derived from half of the said property is to be spent for the performance of the Charitable Trust. After the death of Kanagasabai Nadar, Vellaithambi Nadar was looking after the affairs of the family and managing the estate including the “Chatram Dharmam“, assisted by his mother. The mother was held in high esteem and respected by all the members of the family and she distributed her jewels amongst her children even during her life time. Even after the death of the mother, Vellaithambi Nadar, who was solely managing the estate, never denied the rights of the sisters in the suit property. Unfortunately, Vellaithambi Nadar died on 05.02.1996. As the 2nd defendant is in United States and the 3rd defendant is in Chennai, the 1st defendant is looking after the estate, but her attitude towards the plaintiff and other sisters became indifferent. The plaintiff could no longer enjoy the property in common. Therefore, the plaintiff caused a Notice to be sent to the defendants 1, 3 and 7 to 10, demanding partition of her 1/5th property in the estate of her father Kanagasabai Nadar. On 22.06.1998, defendants 1 and 3 sent a reply alleging that the plaintiff and her sisters have relinquished their interest in the suit property as early as in 1973 itself and that Vellaithambi Nadar has prescribed title by adverse possession.

7. The plaintiff stated that she neither released or relinquished her interest in the suit property nor did she express such an intention in any manner. The plaintiff, out of respect towards her mother Thirupuramsundari Ammal, did not choose to demand partition during her mother's life time. The possession and enjoyment by one co-owner will not become adverse to the other co-owners nor will mutation of patta and house tax in the name of Vellaithambi Nadar take away the rights of the plaintiff.

8. There