The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a co-owner claiming adverse possession to establish hostile possession and exclusion of other co-owners, as outlined in the principles of adverse possession.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2002 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, confirming the decree and Judgment dated 06.12.2001 passed in O.S.No.317 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court.

3. Suit for partition.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit properties described in the plaint 'B' schedule originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandmother Sadharam Ammal and been in her possession and enjoyment and she died intestate leaving behind her daughter Sivabakkiyam Ammal and son Perumal and after the demise of Sadharam Ammal, the plaint schedule properties were enjoyed by her legal heirs, viz., Sivabakkiyam and Perumal and Sivabakkiyam Ammal died about 20 years ago intestate and Perumal died intestate about 15 years ago and the plaintiff is the son of Sivabakkiam Ammal and the first defendant is the wife of Perumal and the second defendant is the son of Perumal. The plaintiff's father Srinivasa Konar died about 40 years ago. The suit properties and other properties were purchased by Sadharam Ammal and her sister Seetai Ammal from one Subramaniya Achari by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.02.1924 and in the partition effected amongst them, the plaint 'B' schedule properties were allotted to Sadharam Ammal and the other properties on the northern side were allotted to Seetai Ammal and thus, the suit properties are the joint properties belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants and the profits derived from the suit properties had been given to the plaintiff by the defendants every year and while so, from 1999 onwards, the defendants had failed to share the profits derived from the suit properties with the plaintiff and left with no other alternative, the plaintiff demand partition of his half share in the suit properties and also issued a legal notice dated 02.01.2000 and the defendants did not respond to the same and hence, the suit for partition.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The fact that the plaint 'B' schedule properties and other properties were purchased by Sadharam Ammal and her sister Seetai Ammal by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.02.1924 is correct and it is also correct to state that in the partition effected amongst above said two sisters, the plaint B schedule properties were allotted to Sadharam Ammal and the northern properties were alloted to Seetai ammal and the relationship between the parties is also admitted and it is false to state that Sadharam Ammal died about 35 years ago and on the other hand, she died about 50 years ago and the plaintiff's mother Sivabakkiam Ammal died about 30 years ago. After the demise of Sadharam Ammal, it is only her son Perumal, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as her legal heir by obtaining patta, paying kist etc., as the full owner thereof and after the demise of Perumal Konar, the defendants had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and thus, on account of their long, continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment of the suit properties for more than the statutory period by excluding the plaintiff and his mother, the defendants have prescribed title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession and at no point of time either Sivabakkiam Ammal or the plaintiff claimed any share in the suit properties and the suit is barred by limitation and it is false to state that the defendants had been sharing the profits of the suit properties with the plaintiff every year and stopped the same since 1999 onwards and the plaintiff is not entitled to lay any claim of right in the suit properties and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to 4 were ma