A co-owner's right to seek partition is a continuous cause of action. Exclusive possession by one co-heir does not constitute ouster or adverse possession unless there is clear, open, and hostile denial of the other co-owners' title communicated to them.

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful defendants before the First Appellate Court, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated December 6, 2017 made in A.S.No.19 of 2016 on the file of ‘Additional District Court (Mahila Court), Cuddalore’ ['First Appellate Court' for short], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated February 2, 2016 made in O.S.No.197 of 2012 on the file of ‘Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore’ ['Trial Court' for short] was reversed.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Trial Court.

Plaintiff’s Case in Brief:

3. Suit Properties were self-acquired properties of Venkatasamy Reddiar, who passed away on April 18, 1998 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff is the sister of both defendants. After the demise of Venkatasamy Reddiar, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties. Defendants were giving 1/3 share in the income from Suit Properties to plaintiff regularly till the year 2010. Thereafter, the defendants failed to pay her 1/3rd share in income, in spite of repeated demands. Hence, the plaintiff caused Notice dated June 30, 2012 to the defendants claiming her 1/3 share in the Suit Properties. On receipt of the Notice, the defendants issued Reply dated September 1, 2012 containing false allegations. Hence, the Suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3 share in the Suit Properties as well as for rendition of accounts.

Defendant’s Case in Brief:

4. The second defendant filed Written Statement. The first defendant adopted the same. The defendants admit that the Suit Properties were self-acquired properties of Venkatasamy Reddiar. They also admit the date of demise of Venkatasamy Reddiar, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants, as well as the defendants’ possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties. The defendants deny that the defendants used to give 1/3 share of income from the Suit property to plaintiff.

4.1. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was never given any share either by the defendants or by Venkatasamy Reddiar. The plaintiff was married off to one Aadhi Narayanan as second wife. On demand from the plaintiff and the said Aadhi Narayanan before their marriage, father - Venkatasamy Reddiar purchased certain properties situate in Malaiperumal Agaram Village at Cuddalore District, in the name of the plaintiff and Nagalakshmi, who is the first wife of the said Aadhi Narayanan, for the welfare of the plaintiff. There occurred a marital discord in 1972 and the plaintiff has been living estrange from the said Aadhi Narayanan since then. Father’s efforts to resolve the marital discord went in vein and therefore, father - Venkatasamy Reddiar restrained the plaintiff from visiting the father’s house and excluded her from enjoying the Suit Properties. Venkatasamy Reddiar never intended to give any share to the plaintiff in the Suit Properties since he had already purchased certain properties in the plaintiff’s name before her marriage as already alluded to supra. Even after the demise of Venkatasamy Reddiar, the plaintiff was ex