https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298930 A prior partition suit that abated under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC did not extinguish the continuing right to seek partition of joint property, so a fresh partition action was maintainable. The house was treated as joint family property, relying on defendants' earlier admission and surrounding circumstances. Exclusive possession by one co-owner was held not to become adverse without clear proof of ouster or a hostile assertion of exclusive title, so adverse possession and limitation failed. On that basis, the plaintiff was found entitled to the half share awarded and the decree for partition was upheld. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Nov 2021 12:11:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298930 A prior partition suit that abated under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC did not extinguish the continuing right to seek partition of joint property, so a fresh partition action was maintainable. The house was treated as joint family property, relying on defendants' earlier admission and surrounding circumstances. Exclusive possession by one co-owner was held not to become adverse without clear proof of ouster or a hostile assertion of exclusive title, so adverse possession and limitation failed. On that basis, the plaintiff was found entitled to the half share awarded and the decree for partition was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298930