JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kasargod in O.S. No.275 of 2006.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly narrated below:

2.1 The plaint schedule property is 50 cents and 20.3 square meters of land in Re-survey No.20/2 of Kubanoor Village in Kasargod Taluk. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to deceased Seedi Beary, the father of the plaintiff. On the death of Seedi Beary, the plaint schedule property devolved upon his wife and children, including the plaintiff. The legal representatives left behind by Seedi Beary are his deceased wife Kaijamma, his daughter deceased Asiamma, plaintiff, Mammu Beary, Mariyamma, Zainaba and one Abdul Rahiman. Defendants 1 to 3 are the children of deceased Asiamma. Defendant No.8 purchased the right in respect of the share of plaintiff's mother Kaijamma, brothers Mammu Beary and Abdulrahiman, sisters Mariyamma and Zainaba in the plaint Schedule property. The plaintiff and Asiamma were not parties to the sale deed stated to have been executed in favour of defendant No.8. The plaintiff claims that himself and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff has 14/72 shares, defendants 1 to 7 together are entitled to 7/72 shares, and defendant No.8 has 51/72 shares in the plaint 'A' schedule property. There are two tiled buildings on the property. Coconut trees, mango trees, jack trees etc. are planted in the property. According to the plaintiff, he has been taking yield from the property, but defendant No.8 made an attempt to cut and remove trees from the plaint Schedule property which he prevented. The plaintiff demanded partition of the plaint Schedule property, but defendant No.8 is not ready and willing to effect partition.

3. Defendants 1 and 3 to 7 supported the claim of the plaintiff.

4. Defendant No.8 resisted the claim of the plaintiff. He pleaded that on the death of Seedi Beary the properties including plaint 'A' schedule property devolved upon his wife and children. In 1969, defendant No.8 approached the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Seedi Beary and offered to purchase the plaint 'A' schedule property. Though the plaintiff and Asiamma agreed to join the sale deed, they did not join as they were not available at the time of execution of the deed. Defendant No.8 has the absolute right in the plaint schedule property. He had paid the full market value of plaint 'A' schedule property to the executants. The consideration paid by defendant No.8 was utilised by the vendors for improving the remaining land in possession of the legal heirs of Seedi Beary. Defendant No.8 is in the exclusive possession of 'A' schedule property after the execution of the sale deed in 1969. He has been in the exclusive possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff and Asiamma. Defendant No.8 further pleaded that a week after the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff and Asiamma approached him demanding share in the plaint Schedule property, but he refused. Thereafter, they never claimed any right over the plaint 'A' schedule property. Defendant No.8 has been enjoying the plaint 'A' schedule property openly, peacefully, continuously and uninterruptedly since 1969 as an absolute owner to the knowledge of all, including the plaintiff and his sister Asiamma. Defendant No.8 has perfected title over 'A' schedule property by way of adverse possession and ouster. The right, if any, the plaintiff had over the plaint schedule property has been lost by limitation and ouster. Defendant No.8 also pleaded that the suit is bad for partial partition and non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. The evidence, in this case, consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and DWs 1 and 2, Ext.A1 marked on the side of the plaintiff and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the defendants.

6. The Trial Court decreed the suit and a preliminary decree for partition was passed holding that the plaint