G. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. KANNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether a co-owner, without pleading and proving that his possession was 'nee vi nee clam nee precario' i.e. peaceful, open and continuous, for the statutory period, can succeed in non-suiting the plaintiff ?" - is the issue to be considered in this second appeal.

(2.) The father has filed the suit both against his son / vendor, the first defendant, and defendants 2 to 5 / the purchasers of item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit property (from the first defendant alone), claiming half-share in the entire 8 items of the suit property. A preliminary decree was passed in accordance with the claim made in the plaint. Challenging the same, first appeal was filed by defendants 2 to 5. The first appeal was dismissed and thereby, the judgment of the trial Court got confirmed. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the second appeal has been filed by the defendants 2 and 3.

(3.) The first defendant is the only son of the plaintiff. The suit properties are the ancestral properties even in the hands of plaintiff's father, Arumugampillai. Plaintiff's father and his (father's) brothers got the properties divided by virtue of the partition deed dated 04.07.1983. In the partition, the suit properties were allotted to the share of plaintiff's father, Arumugampillai.