This second appeal is filed by the second defendant against the decree passed in the suit for partition. The plaintiffs are the purchasers from the original owners. The appellant, who is the second defendant, had contended that his ancestors have been enjoying the suit property for more than 50 years and they acquired title by adverse possession. He has further contended that he became the owner of the suit property by ousting the other co-owners from enjoyment of the suit property.
2. The main defence taken by the second defendant is that the suit is bad for partial partition and for non joinder of necessary parties. As admittedly the plaintiffs are strangers to the family, the question of partial partition cannot be agitated.
3. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the 10th defendant had also preferred an appeal in S.A.No.959 of 1987 which was dismissed on 26.06.1987. In the light of the same and as the present appeal is filed, after enormous delay, the same may not hold any merit.
4. In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. No costs.
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.
2. The District Munsif, Sattur.
3.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.