(1.) THE Appellant/Respondent/Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1994 in A.S.No.111 of 1992 made on the file of the Learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., Learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in the Judgment in A.S.No.111 of 1992 dated 29.4.1994 has among other things observed that 'admittedly construction by Veerammal was put up only in part of the property and not in the entire property, that too in the year 1981. No exclusive possession adverse and hostile to the interest of the plaintiff to his knowledge for the statutory partition of 12.5 years is established in the present case and in the absence of any such proof, the finding of the Trial Court that Veerammal has prescribed title by adverse possession is not legally sustainable. THE mere non-participation of the plaintiff in the profits of the property and exclusive possession however by one co-owner long the period, without anything more will not be sufficient to claim adverse possession by later. THE failure of the Trial Court to adhere to this legal position has resulted in an erroneous finding that Veerammal has perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession. As both the pleas raised by the defendants deserve to be negatived, the plaintiff being the joint owner of the suit property is entitled to the decree for partition and possession of his half share in the suit property and the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court refusing to grant relief of partition is not totally unsustainable and resultantly allowed the appeal with costs' by the reversing Judgment and Decree dated 31.3.1992 of the Trial Court in O.S.No.841 1988.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with the Judgment and decree dated 29.4.1994 of the First Appellate Court viz., learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore made in A.S.No.111 of 1992, the Appellant/Respondent/Defendant has projected this Second Appeal before this Court.