A partition suit filed after 14 years of a co-owner's death is barred by limitation if the other co-owner has established exclusive possession and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

R.Hemalatha, J.

The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No.123/2016 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed the said suit for partition of the suit property into 16 equal shares and to allot three such shares to them.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

3.The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is as follows :

The suit property morefully described in the plaint originally belonged to one Subbanna Gounder. He got the same through a partition in his family in the year 1936. Subbanna Gounder had a son and a daughter by name Ramasamy and Palaniammal. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Palaniammal, while the defendants are the legal heirs of Ramasamy. Subbanna Gounder died intestate during the year 1970 and his wife Karupathal died subsequently. The suit property was in joint possession and enjoyment of Ramasamy and Palaniammal. Palaniammal died on 20.01.2002 and Ramasamy predeceased her. Since the plaintiffs felt that they cannot enjoy the suit property jointly with the defendants, they requested the defendants to partition the suit property which was denied by the defendants. They also reliably learnt that the defendants are making arrangements to sell the suit property in favour of the third parties. Hence the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 on the following grounds:

i. The suit property was originally owned by Subbanna Gounder.

ii. There was an oral partition between Subbanna Gounder and his father Ramasamy during the year 1969 in which the entire suit property was allotted to the share of Ramasamy (since deceased). Ramasamy agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards annual maintenance to his father late Subbanna Gounder.

iii.Since this fact was known to Palaniammal (since deceased), she did not claim any right during her life time.

iv. Ramasamy, the defendants' father was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He also dealt with the suit property by mortgaging the same on 15.06.1971 (Ex.B2) in favour of one Krishna Gounder.

v. In fact, Palaniammal was given in marriage after selling one of the properties belonging to the family through a sale deed dated 17.02.1966 (Ex.B1). Palaniammal was given streedhana during her marriage and she was also ousted from the suit property.

vi. The defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and prescription.

vii.The defendants have paid necessary tax to the Government in respect of the suit property and in fact mutation of records were made several years prior to the filing of the suit as is seen from Ex.B4 to Ex.B10.

The third defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiffs, in his written statement admitted that there was an oral partition between Ramasamy and his grand father Subbanna Gounder.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

"(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of Permanent injunction?

(iii) Whether the suit property was allotted to late Ramasamy by way of an oral partition during the year 1969 and, if so, whether it is valid?

(iv) To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?"

6. In the trial Court, the first plaintiff examined himself and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The first defendant examined himself and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B11.

7. The learned trial court judge, on considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, vide his decree and judgment dated 05.