Adverse possession by ouster defeated partition claims over Streedhana property despite failure to prove Kudivaippu custom.

Properties traced to Valli were treated as Streedhana, but the daughters and heirs of the predeceased son still failed to secure partition because the defendants established long, open and exclusive possession amounting to adverse possession and ouster. The Court held that such possession, maintained beyond the limitation period with ownership asserted and no effective assertion of joint rights by the claimants, extinguished the rival claim. The alleged Kudivaippu custom excluding daughters was not proved, yet that did not displace the limitation finding. The decree for partition based on the 1953 partition deed and the claims of plaintiffs 2 to 4 was therefore unsustainable, and the trial court's dismissal stood restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit properties were the Streedhana property of Valli and whether the daughters and the heirs of the predeceased son were entitled to claim partition; (ii) whether the long, open and exclusive possession of the defendants amounted to adverse possession and ouster, thereby defeating the claim by limitation; (iii) whether the absence of a pleaded and proved Kudivaippu custom disentitled the daughters from a share; and (iv) whether the decree based on the 1953 partition deed and the claim of plaintiffs 2 to 4 could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the suit properties were the Streedhana property of Valli and whether the daughters and the heirs of the predeceased son were entitled to claim partition.

Analysis: The properties stood traced to an acquisition by Valli, and the material on record supported their character as Streedhana. On that footing, the ordinary rule of succession was displaced only to the extent established by the proved custom and by the legal effect of the possession thereafter. The daughters' entitlement depended on whether the alleged custom excluding them was made out, and whether the heirs of the predeceased son could succeed on the proved facts.

Conclusion: The properties were treated as Streedhana, but that did not result in a decree for partition in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the long, open and exclusive possession of the defendants amounted to adverse possession and ouster, thereby defeating the claim by limitation.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the defendants and their predecessors were in continuous, open and exclusive possession for more than the statutory period, with no effective assertion of joint possession by the claimants. Applying the doctrine of adverse possession, the Court held that such possession, coupled with the claim of ownership and the prolonged inaction of the others, extinguished the latter's rights.

Conclusion: The defendants proved adverse possession and ouster, and the claim was barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of a pleaded and proved Kudivaippu custom disentitled the daughters from a share.

Analysis: The pleaded case did not satisfactorily establish the custom relied upon to exclude the daughters. The evidence also did not show that the daughters had been married in the Kudivaippu form so as to deny them succession on that basis. The burden on that aspect was not discharged by the defendants.

Conclusion: The custom-based exclusion was not proved.

Issue (iv): Whether the decree based on the 1953 partition deed and the claim of plaintiffs 2 to 4 could be sustained.

Analysis: The 1953 partition deed and the subsequent possession supported the defendants' title as against the claimants. In view of the finding on adverse possession, the claims of plaintiffs 2 to 4 also failed, and the appellate decree granting partition could not stand.

Conclusion: The decree of partition was unsustainable and the trial court decree was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the appellate decree was set aside, and the dismissal of the suit by the trial court stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Long, open and exclusive possession, asserted as ownership and maintained beyond the limitation period without effective assertion of co-ownership rights by the other claimants, can mature into adverse possession by ouster and extinguish the rival title, even where the property is traced to a female ancestor.

---