The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of adverse possession and the principle of preemption in a partition suit, based on the evidence of possession and transactions over the property.

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The second appeal had been filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.231 of 1992, dated 30.08.1995 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy, which judgment confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1795 of 1984 by the Principal District Munsif, Trichy.

2. O.S.No.1795 of 1984 had been filed seeking a judgment and decree for partition and separate possession and future mesne profits. It had been filed by Abdul Raheeb against two defendants, S.M.Basheer and Rabia Bibi.

3. In the plaint, it had been stated that the suit property in O.D.No.11, Begum Pallivasal Street, T.S.No.440 originally belonged to Mohammed Nazeeruddeen. He had two sons, Abdul Sattar and Abdul Latheef. The plaintiff, Abdul Raheeb, is the son of Abdul Latheef. The second defendant, Rabia Bivi, is the only daughter of Abdul Sattar. Both Abdul Sattar and Abdul Latheef have died. By document, dated 31.01.1935, the suit property was divided into two portions by the original owner, Mohammed Nazeeruddeen. The eastern side portion was allotted to Abdul Sattar and the western side portion was allotted to Abdul Latheef. It had been stated in the plaint that the document was acted upon.

4. The eastern portion is the property under dispute. In that portion, the plaintiff claimed one half share on the death of Abdul Sattar. He stated that the other one half share should be allotted to the second defendant, Rabia Bivi. It is claimed that the first defendant was in possession of the said portion. He is said to be a relative of second defendant. It had been further stated in the document dated 31.01.1935, that, if any alienation is to be done over the property, a first offer should be made to the other brother. The suit had been filed seeking partition and separate possession of the eastern portion of the said property.

5. The first defendant in his written statement stated that the entire property was given on lease to Mohammed Nazeeruddeen and he had constructed a building. It had been stated that he also had a daughter Zainab Bivi Ammal. It was also stated that apart from the plaintiff, the wife of Abdul Latheef, by name, Kaathoon Bivi and daughter Sumera Begum also had a share in the property. It had been stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It had been stated that the eastern portion had been allotted to the father of the second defendant and the plaintiff cannot claim any share in that portion. The second defendant had let out the portion to the first defendant on lease. This was to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It had been stated that by long possession, possessory title had also accrued to the first defendant. It had been stated that the first defendant had also purchased the property and had spent substantial amount for maintenance of the property. It had been further stated that the suit should be dismissed.

6. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal District Munsif, Trichy framed the following issues for trial:

"(1)Whether the first defendant had taken possession of the suit property under an mortgage deed, dated 04.08.1958, from the second defendant and thereafter had purchased the properties?

(2)Whether the plaintiff and the second defendant are in possession of the property jointly?

(3)Whether the continuous possession of the first defendant with the knowledge of the plaintiff has perfected title of the first defendant?

(4)Whether proper Court fee has been paid in the suit?

(5)Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(6)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition?

(7)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits?

(8)Whether the principle of preemption can be enforced against the

second defendant?"

7. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and the second defendant was examined as DW-1. The plaintiff marked as Ex-A1, the document dated 30.01.1935, executed by Mohammed Nazeeruddeen. The defendants marked Ex-B1 to Ex-B10. These included the Othi