Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by three sisters (respondents) against their two brothers (appellants) seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The trial court decreed the suit, granting each sister a 1/5th share. The appellants appealed, arguing that they had acquired title by adverse possession as they were in exclusive possession for over 12 years. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that a co-owner in possession cannot claim adverse possession without proving ouster or denial of title to the knowledge of other co-owners. The court noted that the appellants failed to prove ouster and that the suit was not barred by limitation as possession of one co-owner is possession of all. The decree of the trial court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Co-owner - Ouster - A co-owner in possession of joint family property cannot claim adverse possession against other co-owners unless there is clear ouster or denial of title to the knowledge of other co-owners. The burden of proof lies on the co-owner asserting adverse possession. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation - Partition - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for partition by co-owner not barred by limitation as possession of one co-owner is possession of all. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a co-owner in possession of joint family property can claim adverse possession against other co-owners without establishing ouster or denial of title.
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed. Trial court decree for partition and separate possession upheld.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Co-owner
- Ouster
- Partition
- Limitation
- Burden of proof
