A co-owner’s physical exclusion does not establish ouster without an unequivocal hostile assertion of title.

The plaintiff claimed title to the first floor of the suit building and a 50% undivided share in the land under a sale certificate issued by Indian Overseas Bank on 31 January 2008, following an auction sale.

He alleged that the defendants blocked access to the first floor and asserted exclusive possession.

In an earlier suit, C.S. No. 1134 of 2008, he challenged transactions relied on by the defendants; that suit was decreed in his favour on 4 October 2019, and the sale certificate was registered on 14 January 2020.

He then brought this suit seeking partition, separate possession, and an injunction against alienation.

The first defendant opposed the claim, arguing that it was barred by limitation and by Order II Rule 2 CPC because the plaintiff had not sought partition in the earlier suit.

1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants were in joint possession of the suit property

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition and separate possession of a 50% share, including whether the claim was barred by limitation or Order II Rule 2 CPC

3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining alienation or encumbrance of his share

4. Whether the court fee paid was correct

Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a 12-year limitation period for a title-based suit for possession, commencing when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

As between co-owners, possession by one is ordinarily treated as possession on behalf of all; exclusive occupation alone does not establish ouster.

Ouster requires a clear and unequivocal hostile assertion of title, open and continuous exclusion, and knowledge of that assertion by the other co-owner.

Under Order II Rule 2 CPC, a later suit is barred only where the omitted relief was available on the same cause of action in the earlier suit and was omitted without the required leave.

The Court also relied on Order XX Rule 18 CPC and Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737, for continuing partition proceedings after a preliminary decree toward a final decree.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s physical exclusion from the first floor in 2008 did not, by itself, prove legal ouster.

The plaintiff had challenged the defendants’ asserted title in C.S. No. 1134 of 2008, and the defendants did not prove a clear hostile assertion followed by adverse possession for the statutory period; accordingly, the limitation defence failed.

The Order II Rule 2 objection also failed because the defendants did not establish that the earlier title-related suit and the present partition suit arose from the same cause of action or that partition was omitted from the earlier suit without leave.

The plaintiff’s undivided share remained unpartitioned, supporting a preliminary decree and protection against dealings prejudicial to that share.

Although the court fee issue had been framed, the judgment does not separately discuss or expressly determine it.

It appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the property, divide it by metes and bounds, and report by 30 October 2026; the matter was retained for further proceedings under Order XX Rule 18 CPC.

The connected Original Application was closed.