 Good evening, everyone. And as usual, we have a topic which is very niche and the speaker is also who can take different perspective. In one of the groups, there was a lot of discussion that we should have a session on co-ownership and ouster in partition. So we thought a person who can dive deep into it, who can actually see about the different facts with law amongst the most speakers, Mr. K Prabhakar's name struck in our mind and we requested him. And he also gets, I suppose, fascinated with the interdict topics so that he can dive, have a more deeper dive into it. And therefore, in this presentation, he will be taking in respect of what is the practice as well as law in this subject, which is quite iterating, that is co-ownership and ouster in the partition suits. Being a weekend, we will not take much time. I will request Mr. K Prabhakar to take over the session. Good evening, friends. The possessory right, which is the foundation of a title, adverse possession, ouster in some form, even though it is not title in respect of easement by prescription, this country, valued possession, the first occupant always is stated to be the owner of the property. The legality of the issue with regard to possessory right and subsequently the title of the long possession converted into title probably started with the 200 to 300 years ago. Before that, somebody who is in possession is deemed to be the owner of the property. The registration act, which came in only the early part of the 19th century, which put the nail in the coffin, namely to recognize the possession by converting this possession into a title. You can imagine how a person can raise his title to the property, say for example, 100 years, 150 years or 200 years before, and if law demands them to prove that also in some cases where the religious institutions or parties, the court that demand us to show a right which spans two centuries before. And therefore, this possession really matters. In a sense, there are long lists of cases where the courts have held that the possession is title in respect of the whole world except the true owner. This maxim that the person in possession is entitled to protect his possession has also been elevated to the status of a ownership. Namely, the courts have granted even not injunction, but also declaration in specific cases where if a party comes to the court and says that they have got a possessory right. A possessory right, again the whole world except the true owner, can be declared so by a court of law. And therefore, this possession or a possessory right is invaluable. But the rider is that the parties who are co-sharers or joint owners are members of a joint family. Whether this theory can be preceded into service and if it can be preceded into service, how far it can go. That is the practice and law which we are going to discuss today evening. Joint owners, co-owners, co-sharers and the members of a joint family, even though in colloquially we think everything is one and the same, may not be in the real sense of the word. The reason is there are many people who will be joint tenants or tenants in common are members of a joint family. The person who is a member of a family by birth is presumed to be a person who is in joint possession of the joint family properties. Similarly, one or two or more persons join together and purchase the property. This is not a case of a joint family, but two or three strangers join together and purchase the property. And can we stretch this theory of presumption that a person in possession of the property is still held to be in possession on behalf of other co-owners. The second point is, who are the tenants in common? Without touching the point of a joint family, tenants in common, namely persons who are entered with the property as a legality under a will, then they are not taking the property as members of a family, but they are right on the demise of the state law is that of a tenants in common. Joint tenancy is different from tenants in common. We are not interested in joint tenancy. We are more on to the suits for partition and how the party who is in exclusive possession of the property for a quite number of years is entitled to defend this right against the other co-sharers or co-owners or even members of a joint family. The law doesn't take a view, namely a lenient view, that a person who is in considerable length of time in possession of the property, can there be a presumption that this person is in possession of the property in derogation of the rights of the other co-owners. Even though there is a long list of cases we are going to discuss today, this theory of possession which is quite attached to adverse possession in respect of strangers and in respect of a co-sharer, co-owner or members of a family as ousted, one has to see that the law of adverse possession itself took a turn somewhere in 2009 when his large ship, Delveed Bandari, made a point that this is quite against human rights and therefore your possessory right cannot be given effect to and subsequently in 2011 or so he has again reiterated the principle that this concept of adverse possession after two years, at least the parliament should enact and increases the period to 30 years. Quite unfortunately, when this large ship Delveed Bandari delivered the judgment on the basis of a judgment of the British court, which he said that it is in violation of human rights, quite unfortunately it was not brought to his large ship about the judgment having been overturned subsequently. Therefore, from 2009 courts in India started thinking that the right of possession should not be given effect to, thinking that it is violation of the right of a property, a grab of a property cannot be given any legal status. Yes, if I remember correctly in one judgment of his large ship, yes Mohan and Aina Sundaram of the Madras High Court reported in the year 1989 Madras, they would say that the possession is not a person in possession of the property adversely to another, there is no need to be ashamed of taking such a plea. But after his large ship, Arun Mishra's judgment wherein his large ship has restored the principle that a person in possession adversely can also follow suit on title, restored the original position that there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of if a person says that he is in possession of property for quite number of years and thereby he has prescribed the right to the property. This has been echoed not now, long time back and one of the judgments which I will frequently with the courts have referred to is Varadhar Pillai v. Jeevarathana Maar reported in ILR 1919 Madras page 244 of Judgement of the Preview Council. Varadhar Pillai v. Jeevarathana Maar reported in ILR 1919 Madras page 244 Preview Council where the large ship would say that a possessory right as such can be traced to a gift to deed which is unregistered and which cannot even be recognized in the court of law. That was a case where a person put forward a plea of adverse possession as well on the basis of an unregistered gift to deed. The Preview Council held that even though that document by the mere fact that it has not been registered cannot be used for showing his title, it can be used to show that from that point of time possession of that person under the unregistered gift deed may be adverse to the other two bonus. The outster as such, what is an outster? This principle has to be distinguished from adverse possession. In both the cases whether it is adverse possession or outster, there should be continuity, adequacy and openness namely a person who says that he is in possession of the property, it should be adequate, then continuous uninterrupted, hostile, title to the true owner. But these are all concepts which apply to a case of an adverse possession as well as that of an outster. An over act that I am in possession of the property in derogation of anybody's right even if they are a true owner is enough in case of a person pleading adverse possession against a stranger. But your over act showing that yes, I am in possession of the property, I have put up construction etc may not be necessary if you want to put up a case against a person who is a co-sharer or a joint owner or a member of a joint family. The difference is this in case of an outster the loss is that you are right to be in possession of the property for a long number of years should be not only over hostile continuous but to the knowledge of the other co-sharers namely your possession is in derogation or in denial of the right of the other co-sharers. You should bring to the notice of the other co-sharers namely you go and say that you are not the owner you don't have any share in the property I am the absolute owner of the property I am entitled to enjoy the property then if a period of 12 years lapses from that day then only you can say that you have ousted the right of the parties. Does it require for a person to go to the top of a gobura or a church and to beat the trumpet to say that yes I am in possession of the property in case of an adverse possession that is not necessary but in case of an outster the necessity of showing to the true owner the difference is this in case of an adverse possession an over act of enjoying the property as your property is enough if the neighborhood think that you are the owner and you enjoy the property even if it has not been brought to the knowledge of the other man then also you can plead and prove adverse possession but this over act and to the knowledge of the neighborhood is not enough in case of a person who is a co-owner along with you in such a cases you must bring to the notice of the other man that I am in possession of the property I am enjoying the property as my property and you don't climb any right it is in derogation of his right in denial of his right and then subsequently the period of 12 years should have lapsed then only you can take a plea of ousted but the earlier cases I am not sure whether the courts will entertain such a plea today but earlier cases would show that this case of an outster can even be inferred from the conduct of the parties many cases we say that there is no plea of adverse possession and even a mere plea of adverse possession in a single line is not enough you should specifically plead the date from when she did your possession has become adverse etc there is a lot of confusion in case of upholding the right of possession or a possessory right for a longer period whether it is adverse possession whether it is outster the reason in many cases if a defendant comes to the court he cannot bank upon the principle of adverse possession because you have to admit the title of the true owner and they say that I am in possession of the property in derogation of your right normally no lawyer or trial lawyer would take such a single plea what he would do is deny the right of the plaintiff over the true property and simultaneously he would take a plea of adverse possession or outster etc in such cases the courts have frowned upon the person who claims title to the property as well as adverse possession thinking that both of them cannot go together there are many judgments wherein the courts have yielded that it is not possible and many of the i-codes indiscriminately dismisses the claim of adverse possession because they have climbed the title also in one case is larchip pravindran if i remember year 2009 aswad mamaskar is larchip pravindran catcher the point beautifully where is larchip would say that a person climbing title in respect to the property against x and at the same time wants to climb a right of adverse possession against why are the plaintiff is entitled to do it the pointed tissue is a person in possession of the property if you want to plead and succeed adverse possession he can say once a suit has been filed by the plaintiff with their real owner you are not the owner of the property and at the same time you can also say that i have purchased the property not from you from a third party and from that date of the sale the total years have elapsed and therefore you are not the owner of the property and at simultaneously i have prescribed title again of by adverse possession against you because i have purchased the property not from you i have not traced the title to the plaintiff but to the third party this has to be banned in mind the reason is this many courts have held that title and adverse possession cannot go together similarly this aswad mamaskar gave a clarification i doubt that they many of the courts even doesn't want to follow in case of adverse possession title and adverse possession can be pleaded provided you have not traced your title to the plaintiff or you have under one status or the other took possession from the plaintiff or his predecessor entitled and then you want to convert that into the tough and adverse possession in such a case law demands that you must give a specific date when you have denied the title of the plaintiff say for example 1119 90 before that i was a tenant or a mortgagee under the plaintiff and on 1119 90 i gave a notice to the plaintiff stating that you are not the owner you disowned his right and then afterwards my possession is adverse to you and their total years have lapsed only in such a cases where you come into possession of the property in one status or the other from the plaintiff or his predecessor entitled then you cannot be an adverse possession unless you disowned that and giving a date from which your possession has become adverse but if you take a right of denying the right of the plaintiff and claiming a right of adverse possession on the basis that you have purchased the property from x who is a stranger then you are entitled to do it if you are able to prove it that is a aswathamaskes now coming to this outster law can also infer outster there is absolutely no need for you to plead the exact word of outster in some cases under the specifically ready and willingness everybody would say that ready and willingness has to be pleaded and proved before the amendment to now it you need not our it you have to prove but in one or two judgments of the supreme court they have said that there is no need to use the exact word what you have to do is someone substance of the pleading is enough to show that this is the plea which is taken in many of the cases the foundation in respect of a civil suits arose from a mofasul pleading and therefore the pleading has to be read as our call and to find out what is the real nature of the right claim to buy the party whether it is outster or not it can also be inferred inference what is the type of inference of an outster the law says or the many of the judgments have would say that it can be infer provided you are able to show your possession continuously and derogation of the other man's right and if the other man kept to quite not be standing the fact that he could have found out that your possession is denail of his right and if he kept keep quiet then this inference will kick in straight away a beautiful judgment of the patna high court in badma pande versus bansaru pande badma pande versus bansaru pande aia 1920 patna page 260 that is a case where parties live together in the very same village one of them one of the co-owner or a member of a family took possession of a particular property he started enjoying the property as his absolute property and when the other members tried to barge in or enter the property they have been prevented in such a case the court said that the parties are living in the very same village and one of them is in possession exclusively for 25 years and has made some improvement in the property say for example putting a small shed or a building etc and this is all could have been found out by the other members of the family or a co-owner because he is residing in the same village in such a cases your village is a small place therefore you can if you are interested in knowing things you could have easily found out that this man is in possession of the property maybe interrogation of his right that can be inferred from the conduct that this man has got knowledge of the denial of title by the other and still he kept quiet he did not rise his little finger and if the time has lapsed then the plea of ouster will kick in the second day Venkatar Rao versus Vengobar Rao Venkatar Rao versus Vengobar Rao AIR 1927 Madras AIR 1927 Madras page 595 the court said that there can be an inference of an ouster from very many circumstances one of them is if a person is in exclusive possession and he demolishes a superstructure there on or a dilapidated structure and put up a news construction in the property by spending money etc and preventing other members to enter the house after the new construction saying that I have put up the house it is my property you can't bargain and after that two years have lapsed then the plea of ouster has to be necessarily inferred by the court the next case is Gangadhar was Parash Rao Gangadhar was as Parash Rao 29 ILR 1905 page 300 29 ILR Bombay page 300 29 ILR Bombay page 300 Gangadhar versus Parash Rao in that case a property has been rented out and that the rent was received by only one member and he has not shared that income with the other members or the other co-owners and on facts it has been established that for more than 50 years a single individual who is alleged to be a co-owner of the property received the rent continually without sharing the same with the other members the other members kept quiet and did not raise their voice in such a case the court said that if you have not received the rent for 50 years from a property knowing full well that you have got some right over the property in such a case is the law has to infer that there is a case of an ouster remember these are all old cases where the exposure to the world was very very limited even in such a case is the law has inferred about adverse law has inferred about the ouster but now the present day world a person in Trichy Arumavurai can very well know what is happening in Chandigarh the level of media available and the level of exposure available to a person is so huge and tremendous in such a case whether the inference has to be given a go by and demand something else or something more when under years before the courts have inferred can we not infer this in the present circumstances or to demand more than a mere inference of ouster I beg to differ from the many of the judgments where they have watered down this principle of inference of ouster stating that you require some concrete proof if a person can be bought 100 years ago when there was a absolutely no exposure available how this principle should not be applied in a present day world where everybody is on his toes I will place it before this forum the next case is Lexmy Reddy versus Lexmy Reddy a year 1957 Supreme Court page 314 a year 1957 Supreme Court page 314 there is a very interesting case where the court has inferred ouster in fact it has also referred if I remember correctly of his lordship vishnasasri judgment reported in 1951 madras where the inference is possible the inference with regard to what that is a question this has been again considered by the Honorable Supreme Court in Muntakal Yalpi Chenna Basavanna Gau versus Mahabaleshwara Paiya in 1954 Supreme Court page 337 that is a very interesting case where a person lost his position the other man started enjoying the property ousting your right and then the person who lost the position makes some human cry a mental act not taking any steps in a court of law a mental act stating that I am also the owner of the property joint owner of the property I have got also a right he makes all kinds of sound bites but of no substance can there be an ouster ouster requires a strong proof and now if you take the decisions of the present day world inferences also cannot be taken lightly but can a person who raises a voice because the law says it should be continuous uninterrupted open hostile these are all things available for a person who says that I have ousted your right and the person who lost possession makes a human cry makes sound bites you are not the absolute owner your possession is not that of an exclusive owner I am also the owner of the property I am entitled to share in the property these are all sound bites he makes assuming for a moment he gives a notice then he keeps quiet can there be an ouster or not the law says mere mental act on the part of the person disposes unaccompanied by change or character of possession is not enough to defeat the climb of an ouster mere mental act on the part of the person disposes unaccompanied by change of character of possession is not enough to defeat the climb of ouster a person ousted from property he makes a mental act he makes a human cry he says I am also entitled to the property you cannot enjoy it exclusively but unaccompanied by change of character in possession you need not go to the court but a person claims that he is in exclusive possession and you say that I have got a right also you barge into the property you stay in one portion of the property then that changes the character of possession of an exclusive possession of somebody to the different joint position law doesn't force you to go to the court law says that you have to change the character of possession when a person started enjoying the property stating that I have ousted your right and within that window period of 12 years you barge into the property and be in possession of a portion of the property and become a joint possessor of the property then you can defeat the climb it is not necessary that in all cases you have to go to the court for a joint possession claim on the differ filing a suit for partition the next case kundu versus kochi 1971 kundu versus kochi 1971 3 sec page is 784 1971 3 sec page is 784 that was the case where a person took a plea of ousted but there were evidence to show that this man who claims a right of possession by ousting the other man's right paying some money to the other members of the family namely the sharing the profits say for example the rent lease rental or income from the agricultural properties what he took in the court was I out of generosity to the other members of the family I have distributed small portion of the income but I enjoyed the major portion assuming for a woman the annual income from a particular property is a lack of rupee I gave my joint owners 100 rupees each or 500 rupees each and this man took a plea that it was only out of affection to the other members of the family therefore the I have pleaded outside it has to be up the court said even a mini school portion of the rent or profit is shared with the members of the family it has to be traced to the right over the property rather than the largesy of the person who distribute out of affection therefore once the some portion of the income is shared and if there is any evidence to that effect the law will infer that you received that income or the profit from the property as a co-owner or a co-sharer and not out of the largesy or affection by the other member of the family who take a plea of ousted the next case one of the very interesting case Moeddin Abdul Qadir versus Mohammed Moeddin Moeddin Abdul Qadir versus Mohammed Moeddin 1970 ILR 2 page number 636 1970 ILR Madras page volume 2 page 3 636 page 636 kindly go through the judgment I'll give that the the list contained Madras is missing 1970 ILR Madras volume 2 636 I think in many of the search engines it is available Moeddin Abdul Qadir versus Mohammed Moeddin a very lengthy judgment on two aspects there is a wonderful judgment of his Lajshab case Ramamurthy and Venkat Raman of the Madras High Court where hundreds of ruling has been referred to English law as well as the Indian courts of various high courts including Allahabad Calcutta Bombay etc and they have come home with some after discussing all the aspects they came to conclusion that the ousted has to be pleaded and proved but in cases where a person is in exclusive possession or receiving the rent or profits for a quite long years without stating or denying the right of the person then the court can infer that was a ousted law has been successfully stated like this if a person enjoys the profit or rental income from the property quite number of years and he did not state to the other co-sharers that I have denied your right I have in possession or receiving the rent in derogation of my right but he goes on receiving the rent goes on receiving the profits on the property say for 40 years 50 years or 60 years and if the other co-sharers or co-owners keep quiet then notwithstanding the fact that this man who said that he has ousted the right of the other man could not establish before a court of law that from particular day I have denied that right of the other co-owners for which there is no proof in many cases we can even visualize a person who conducted case before a trial court which I have taken a plea of ousted but we will be in a very difficult position to save or pinpoint from when the possession of the person is in derogation or denial of the title of the other co-sharers because in many cases this fellow will be enjoying the property even if he has denied the right it will be only orally there may not be any proof therefore for those people this inference from long and continuous possession of the property and receiving the rent or profits will go a long way to show that he is in possession of the property by ousting the right the law can infer notwithstanding the fact that this man was not in a position to pinpoint when he had denied the title of the other co-sharers longer the position stronger the inference suppose a person is a possession for only 13 years 15 years the law says the mechanism is only 12 years and if this person is able to show only for 15 years and there is no evidence on record to show that on a particular day he has denied the title and he has been enjoying of the property enjoying the property continuously for more than 12 years in such a case the courts will be hesitant to accept the claim and the converse if a person is in possession of the property continuously for 15 years and he received the rent and the person who claimed that he has a joint owner over the property was not in a position to show that at any point of time he has disturbed the position at any point of time he has received his share of the income and in the absence of the same the court can take an inference namely longer the possession or enjoyment of the fruits of the property stronger the inference the next case Shambu Prasad Singh versus Poonam Kumari Shambu Prasad Singh versus Poonam Kumari AIR 1971 AIR 1971 Supreme Court Page 1337 in that case the court has referred to the 1954 judgment and I said that the ouster requires a pleading and it did not go into the question of inference etc but the court said that the long possession of the property a person can oust the rights of the other kosher it's not that it should be a person in possession of the property is deemed to be in possession of the other kosher as normally the theory is if a person is in possession his possession is not that of an exclusive owner if there are other co-owners his possession is on behalf of other co-owners and if you want to break this chain then there must be a proof when it the chain was broken and if there is no date for breaking the chain the long possession may lead to an inference about the breaking of the chain another judgment Anjapa versus Somalinga Pa 2006 7 SCC 570 7 SCC 570 Anjapa versus Somalinga Pa 2006 7 SCC page 570 there was a case where there was no pleading about ouster but someone I think if I remember correctly it was Altamas Kabir and etc or Kajju if I remember it is Kajjuvar and Slashiv Kajju and Sinha where the lawsuit after reading the entire pleading found that the what this man want to convey the meaning is that his possession is in denial of the right of the plaintiff who has compared with the suit and this denial is nothing but the ouster and the courts have also said that it is a professional pleading therefore one should pluck out the pit and substance of the pleading rather than seeing the pleading whether if the word ouster is there or not there's no need for using the exact words there's absolute no even in case of an adverse position there's no need for you to use the exact words but the problem is it is very difficult for us to commit the court there is no word to that effect because law is different from justice justice is based upon an individual fact and circumstances of an individual case but the law says that it doesn't require the exact words but the very same judge in one case he will say that there is no pleading in another case he will say that there is a pleading that the even if there is no pleading it can be uphill because that amount of discretion is available to the court when you want to take up the case of ouster or adverse position very same state of facts one judge may take the plea of ouster one judge may refuse to take that and they can very well say that all the facts or circumstances are not identified therefore by way of abundant portion in cases where you want to plea adverse position and ouster to make a plea and also do make a plea that when it has become adverse or if you have got a title deed you say that I have got a title deed and then so and so sale deed etc from that the possession again the pleading is adverse another case very interesting case going the mall versus vermal chettia going the mall versus vermal chettia 2006 11 sec page 600 2006 11 sec page 600 where a lady comes over to the partition suit the lady first issued somewhere in 1955 or 50 say she issues a notice demanding partition and she kept quiet after 25 years she followed suit stating that after she made a plea in the plane I issued a notice I went to my brother who is the defendant and he said that he will give a share of the property afterwards therefore I kept to quiet in that case also there was a denial of right of the plaintiff in the reply still this large ship I remember Altamastabi and another judge I said mere issuance of the notice will not deny the right of the party because unless and until ouster is pleaded and proved the lady is entered into a share mere denial in the notice is not enough because she has made a plea that she went and met her brother and his brother has said that she will give the property or give the share in such a case the courts have taken a lenient view therefore probably in another same set of facts the court may say that the ones who notice has been issued and if you kept quiet for 12 years you lose right what is that mere the inference which the courts have held from 1919 Dioratramas case what are the police case is that the inference is enough but the very same court has said that this inference cannot be taken in the facts and circumstances because mere issuance of notice is not enough that much of discretion is available to the court there is no straight jacket formula where you can use point number one two three therefore there is a ouster there is no ouster that's not the case and cannot be done and now between the co-owners whether really one has to go for a partition that is if I remember there is one section under section 43 of 44 of the TPA where a person can also get a declaration of his share of the joint family property or a co-owner share without disturbing it namely if I am the owner of one-third share of the property I can go and ask for one-third share of the for a declaration right also but the point is is cannot court grant an injunction against another co-owner who is an exclusive possession of the property and he is trying to change the character of the property long line of cases and first which will come to my mind is Santram Nagina Ram Santram Nagina Ram versus Daya Ram Nagina Ram Santram Nagina Ram versus Daya Ram Nagina Ram A.R. 1961 Punjab and Ariana page 528 page 528 A.R. 1961 Punjab and Ariana page 528 of his last section just go and read the judgment beautiful judgment on co-ownership ultimately as the court vetted through all the judgments and made some point to his discussion and the submission that in case of a co-owner a person in possession is deemed to be in possession on behalf of all the co-owners that the first point second if a person in possession an exclusive possession is entitled to use the property till a partition suit is filed three if a person in possession of the property suppose if you want to change the character of possession of the property or to put up a building then it has to be decided on facts by on each case namely the construction can be over and subsequently come to the court or the moment the construction is started you come to the court three your person in possession of the property is entitled to assuming for a moment one third share or one fourth share and he is putting only a construction within the limit of his one third share or one fourth share these are the consideration which has to be taken into account go and read a year 1961 Punjab and Ariana page 528 to master this law of co-ownership along with another judgment I'll come to the Allahabad Aykut of 1951 this judgment therefore says that it is not an inviolable rule that a person cannot put up a construction if he puts up construction in the property it is at his peril the other man is entitled to partition but can the person who says that I am also a co-owner of the property file a suit for injunction that the other man should not put up construction this can be done provided he shows two things one it is detrimental to his interest to he comes to the court immediately the moment the father person start putting up construction you come to the court and you say that it is detrimental to interest three if the construction put up or proposed to be put up is not in respect of his share at all but he goes beyond that suppose he is entitled to only one fourth share and this man started putting up construction in two fourth share or two third share in the court can exercise and another point is if a person who purchased the property and started putting up construction from one co-owner can he be called as a bona fide purchaser in one case after the case come to the court the person who purchased the property go on constructing the property in such a case the court can even order demolition of the property that can happen just to see chedi law versus chote law ar 1951 page 199 chedi law versus chote law ar 1951 page 199 the full bench decision that is latshwin gula mussein has waded through all the judgments about the law of co-ownership and came to the conclusion that the construction can be divided or bisected into two permanent or temporary two when the person comes to the court whether at the earliest opportunity or after the construction is over three the length of time taken for putting up concession for the concession made is whether within the is share of the property or he has exceeded his limit just read these two judgments you will master the law of co-ownership another judgment prime murlithar himdev versus kanya lal himdev ar 1999 ar 1999 supreme court page 2171 again it has reiterated the very same principle about the law of co-ownership and the last of the two judgment on that aspect which i would like to take up is shankar lal versus patty ram shankar lal versus patty ram ar 1937 aloha bat page 293 ar 1937 aloha bat page 293 where the court for the first time made a distinction between the construction of a permanent nature and that of a temporary nature if it is of a permanent nature the court say that one can go and offer demolition of the building itself if he is exceeding his limit or changing the character once there is a permanent structure obviously it will be detrimental to the impressory other court and therefore it can be demolished but if it is a temporary structure this can be taken into account at the time of filing a suit for partition therefore in all cases where one person acts in detrimental to the other man the law says that you go and follow suit for partition a mere suit for injunction you may get some relief but whether the finality will be reached then you have to go for a partition suit thereafter the next case ram lal versus jagannath ram lal versus jagannath a 1950 aloha bat weekly reporter awr page 336 ram lal versus jagannath 1950 awr 336 it was a case of an additional construction made by one of the chair the court says that it will not change the character of position it is not a case of an ousting your right it is only an additional construction and the last of the judgment on that score midinapur jeminder versus narendra midinapur jeminder versus narendra awr 1924 privy council page one double four page one double four that was a case where the court has said that the remedy in such a case is not a suit for injunction it is better or appropriate to go for a suit for partition and in also in the last two lines it says that applying probably even though it doesn't discuss that section 88 of the plus tag it says that you can ask for mean profit only for three years not for a if you are a co-owner you can normally ask for a profit for a longer period but for two years but the court says that it is possible only for six years at that point of under the old limitation act now it is three years the last chapter is that the fiduciary relationship among the co-shares the fiduciary relationship is defined under section 88 of the trust act where by taking undue advantage of the relationship between the parties namely accurate wife father and son guru and sisha etc whether that there is absolutely no period of limitation for those cases and if you combine with the section 10 of the limitation act but the court said that section 88 of the trust act will not apply in case of a co-owners think it will this theory will apply more in case of a modern law rather than a hindu law because under modern law there is no concept of a joint family there are only tenants in common i'll refer to two judgment one is abdul raheem versus abdul akim abdul raheem versus abdul akim i'll are 1930 madras page 543 i'll are 1930 madras page 543 rather than ashuput say that the fiduciary relationship as contemplated under section 88 of the trust act is not applicable there has been followed subsequently in abdul samad khan kiladar abdul samad khan kiladar versus bb jan 1975 1mlj page 675 to sum up in case of a ouster there is a you have to have much stronger proof than that of adverse possession in case of adverse possession what is required is only a hostile continuous adequacy but in case of an ouster all these ingredients should namely our hostile adequate continuous uninterrupted should be brought to the knowledge of the co-owner stating that i am in possession of the property interrogation or in denial of your title and then totally i should have elapsed two law by way of a long continuous possession will always infer if a person enjoys the property the fruits of the property or the profits of the property continuously for a quite number of years and the other man didn't object or raise any objection then ouster can be inferred three there is no fiduciary relationship among the co-sharers four in case of a construction made by one party or the co-sharer co-owner interrogation of the right or the other co-owner law has to see whether this construction is a permanent or temporary two whether the construction is made is within his limits or his or his share or the exit that share four whether this construction is an additional construction daily if a person has put up a construction and already there is a first of the ground floor of the property he wants to put up one group law saying that it is not interrogation of the right it doesn't change the character of possession it's a Sunday i thank everybody to stop as my friend because it will within one hour thank you and as usual it was flurry of knowledge only yeah this is the way she says in an unregistered partition deed share of one co-owner is taken away but that co-owner started selling her share to others can other co-owner enter out sir on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed a partition deed this answer is straight away in varadapalli's case varadapalli versus jivaratnam all ayila 1990 miras page 244 privy council there is a gaze of an unregistered gift deed where it can be inferred the possession is against the interrogation of the nail effect that is absolutely all subject to admissibility of a document you know very well there are two things available in case of an unregistered partition deed one is time duty and another is registration even if the registration goes you have to pay the stamp duty and then in case of a partition there are three stages meets and bounds one division in status that is the first two meets and bound then three delivery of possession for first and three there is no need for any registered document you can even prove that without any evidence only in case of a meets and bounds one is required to have a registered document therefore an unregistered partition deed can be used provided you pay the stamp duty yeah as we have young lawyers and student of law also they would like to understand what is meets and bound meets and bounds is exactly once a suit has been filed for partition there are two stages one is the preliminary degree and then a final degree if it comes to the partition meets and bounds means after fixing the share of the person who files a suit for partition and who asks for partition has a different then and then in the final degree proceeding the court will decide which property you will take all the properties which will be measured and then the final degree will be drawn after the both the parties argue on the point or concede and then these division or the modes of division will be suggested by a commissioner or in cases of partition without the intervention of the court if a partition deed takes place and it gives a detail of the properties which is allotted to A, B, C etc. then that is called as the meets and bounds this requires if it is reduced into writing meets and bounds requires a registered document or it should be done through court namely by way of a suit for partition culminating in a final degree and then position of the property this is youtube it says whether a plea of ouster against a co-owner can be used as a sword like the plea of adverse position why not always even if you were able to prove ouster and this can be used as a not only as a shield as well as a sword because the reason is a person it's one mode of acquiring the property in case of an adverse position you acquire the entire property from a stranger in case of an outster you acquire a portion or a share other by other shares property provider you are able to establish ouster you can even follow suit for declaration that you are absolutely one of the property of the basis of our ouster yeah so thank you for sharing your knowledge it's always a pleasure learning and unlearning from you thank you unlearning certain things which we feel that this is the correct way of law but once you understand then you understand that what has to be kept off from the to make a better sculpture of knowledge yeah thank you thank you