Exclusive possession and revenue mutations do not establish ouster of co-owners absent clear hostile assertion.

The plaintiff and defendants were the five children of Purushothaman and Lalitha.

Purushothaman obtained the suit properties under a registered settlement deed executed by his father, Veerasamy, dated 28 May 1952.

The Court treated the properties received under the settlement as Purushothaman’s self-acquired properties, rather than as ancestral or joint family properties.

Purushothaman died intestate on 23 May 2001, and Lalitha died in 2010.

The plaintiff claimed that, as one of the legal heirs, she was entitled to a 1/5 share in the suit properties and sought a preliminary decree for partition.

The first defendant resisted the suit, asserting that he had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties for about 30 years, had paid municipal and revenue taxes, had constructed buildings thereon, and that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by limitation and the doctrine of ouster.

He also alleged that the plaintiff had orally sought partition about 15 years earlier and suggested that their father had executed a Will in his favour, although the Will was not produced.

The trial Court decreed the suit on 29 January 2024 and granted the plaintiff a 1/5 share.

The first defendant preferred the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Whether the first defendant had established exclusive and adverse possession of the suit properties beyond the statutory period, thereby rendering the plaintiff’s suit for partition barred by limitation?

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/5 share in the suit properties?

3. Whether the trial Court’s judgment and decree were legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside?

The Court applied the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly the principles governing intestate succession under Section 8 and succession by individual heirs under Section 19, holding that the children succeeded to the father’s self-acquired property in their individual rights and not by family branches.

It relied on Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Others, 2025 INSC 532, for the principle that property allotted to a person upon partition or settlement ceases to retain its joint-family character and becomes that person’s self-acquired property.

The Court also referred to Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 641, recognising the equal status and rights of daughters in coparcenary property and clarifying that a daughter’s right is not defeated merely because the father was not alive on 9 September 2005.

On limitation and ouster, the Court considered Articles 65 and 110 and Sections 3 and 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but applied the settled principle that possession by one co-owner is ordinarily possession on behalf of all co-owners; adverse possession or ouster requires clear, hostile, open and continuous denial of the other co-owner’s title.

Mere mutation of revenue records or payment of taxes is insufficient to establish ouster.

The Court distinguished Puniyavathi v. Pachaiammal, 2022-1 L.W. 902, and Ramathal v. Chinnasamy Gounder, 2026-1 L.W. 679, as cases involving materially different facts, including proved oral or written partitions and prolonged exclusive possession.

The Court held that the suit properties were Purushothaman’s self-acquired properties because they had been allotted to him under the settlement deed, and therefore the succession was governed by intestate succession rather than coparcenary principles.

Upon Purushothaman’s death, his widow and five children succeeded to the property; after the mother’s death in 2010, her interest devolved upon the five children, resulting in each child being entitled to a 1/5 share.

The first defendant failed to prove a legally effective partition, relinquishment, Will, or other instrument excluding the plaintiff and the other sisters.

His evidence showed that he knew the plaintiff and the other defendants were co-owners and that he claimed the property principally on the basis of long possession.

The mutation of records and payment of taxes did not, by themselves, establish hostile possession or communicate a clear denial of the plaintiff’s title.

Further, the alleged reconstruction after the 2008 fire occurred around the time of, or after, the institution of the suit, and the supporting documents were subsequent to the suit; consequently, they did not establish adverse possession for the statutory period.

Since ouster was not proved, the plaintiff’s right to seek partition was not extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, and the suit was not barred by limitation.

It held that the first defendant had not established exclusive adverse possession or ouster, that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/5 share in the suit properties, and that the suit was not barred by limitation.

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment and preliminary decree dated 29 January 2024 in O.S.No.44 of 2017 were confirmed, and no costs were awarded.

The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.