IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of adverse possession by a stranger stands on a completely different footing from plea of adverse possession made by a co-owner or a coparcener or a member of family as against rest.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—Aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit for partition, the plaintiff has come up with the above appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Godi Rajeswarai, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 5 to 8, Mr. P. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Meharchnd Noori, learned counsel for the 11th respondent.

3. The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak, seeking partition and separate possession of her ?th share in the properties described in Schedules A, B, C and D of the plaint. The case of the appellant/ plaintiff in the suit was that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are the daughters of one Burigari Kista Reddy; that the said Kista Reddy was the absolute owner of properties detailed in the plaint schedules; that they were all his self-acquired properties; that Kista Reddy died intestate in the year 1971 leaving behind his wife Satyamma and 5 daughters who are appellant/plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4; that after the death of the father Kista Reddy, the name of the mother namely Satyamma was entered in the revenue records; that after the death of the mother Satyamma, the properties devolved equally upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4; that during the life time of the father Kista Reddy, he performed the marriage of the plaintiff as well as the defendants 1 to 4; that after the death of both the parents, the 1st defendant used to look after the properties; that when the activities of the 1st defendant became suspicious, the plaintiff approached the Mandal Revenue Officer and obtained certified copies of the Pahanies and other documents; that from those documents he found that the sons of the 1st defendant, who were arrayed as defendants 5 to 8, got their names entered in the revenue records; that the said mutation was unlawful and that therefore, she was entitled to partition.

4. The defendants 2 to 4 (sisters of the plaintiff) filed a written statement agreeing with the claim of the plaintiff and praying for a decree as sought by the plaintiff. In other words, the defendants 2 to 4 supported the case of the plaintiff.

5. Interestingly, the 1st defendant did not file a written statement. But her sons who were arrayed as defendants 5 to 8 filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit properties originally belonged to Kista Reddy; that Kista Reddy died not in the year 1971, but in the year 1968; that the 1st defendant was given in marriage to one Narayana Reddy, who was brought to the house of Kista Reddy as illatam; that the 1st defendant’s husband (father of defendants 5 to 8) was in possession and enjoyment of all the properties till his death; that after his death, the defendants 5 to 8 are in possession and enjoyment; that it is true that the mother Satyamma died intestate in the year 2002; that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 were not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; that the marriages of defendants 2 to 4 were not performed by the father Kista Reddy, but performed by Narayana Reddy, who was adopted as illatam son-in-law; that the property in Sy.No.621 was sold by the 5th defendant to the 9th defendant under a sale deed document No.1855/98 to meet the family necessities; that the 9th defendant in turn sold the land to the 10th defendant; that the 5th defendant sold another extent of land in the same survey cents in Sy.No.135 to the 12th defendant; that from the date of purchase, the purchasers are in possession and enjoyment to the knowledge of the plaintiff and defendants 2, 3 and 4; that when the 1st defendant’s husband was brought as illatom son-in-law, a document of illarikam was executed, giving properties to him; that since Kista Reddy was suffering from Leprosy, the marriages of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 were performed by 1st defendant’s husband, as the elder member of the family; that the marriage