Sons are liable for father's antecedent debts, making their shares in ancestral property subject to court auction sales. Adverse possession must show clear, continuous, and hostile possession to succeed.

JUDGMENT :

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. These second appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the learned II Additional District Judge at Erode in A.S.Nos.227 & 228 of 1998 dated 29.06.1999, in reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Perundurai in O.S.No.187 of 1995 and O.S.No.197 of 1996 dated 15.09.1998.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit in O.S.No.197 of 1996.

3. O.S.No.197 of 1996 is a suit for partition. It was originally presented as O.S.No.349 of 1992, on the file of the Sub Court at Erode. Initially, it was decreed declaring the plaintiffs' 2/6^th share. Aggreived by the same, the defendants 2 and 3 preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the defendants 2 and 3 as plaintiffs, presented O.S.No.1568 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court at Erode. In this suit, the defendants 2 to 3, as plaintifffs, sought for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the property, and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, both the suits were transferred to the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Perundurai for disposal and renumbered as O.S.No.197 of 1996 and O.S.No.187 of 1995.

The facts leading to the appeal

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule mentioned property belonged to one, Rama Navithan. The property was his ancestral property. Rama Navithan had two sons, namely, Karuppa Navithan and Chinna Karuppan. Plaintiffs are the sons of Karuppa Navithan, the first defendant. On the death of Rama Navithan, Karuppa Navithan and Chinna Karuppan succeeded to the estate. Chinna Karuppan sold his half share in the suit property in favour of Karuppannan, the second defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that, the suit property being a coparcenary property, and as they are the sons of Karuppa Navithan, they are entitled to 2/6^th share of the suit properties in common. The plaintiffs further alleged that the first defendant, their father, had left the family in and about 1969 and had gone to Mysore for eking out his livelihood, leaving the plaintiffs and their mother in lurch. It was only recently, the first defendant had returned to his native village. They alleged that for the sake of convenient enjoyment, they were in possession of the eastern portion of the suit property, while the purchaser, second defendant, was in enjoyment of the western portion. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. She claimed that the property came to her through her father, one Muthusamy Gounder. They alleged that the third defendant is not in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that she is an utter stranger to the family. As they found it inconvenient to enjoy the properties in common, and since the second defendant was not amenable to an amicable partition outside the Court, they came forth with the suit in O.S.No.197 of 1996.

5. Summons were served on the defendants. The first defendant, Karuppa Navithan remained exparte. The second defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the third defendant.

6. In the said statement, the second defendant conceded the fact that Karuppa Navithan and Chinna Karuppan were entitled to equal moieties. However, it was denied that the joint title and possession of the br