Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for partition. 2. Survey No. 71/1C of Parassala village, 2 acres 44 cents in extent, was an Oodukoor holding, with pattahs Nos. 393, 394 and 395, for 1/3 each. Subsequently, the Oodukoor Settlement Officer has declared the property to be a joint holding of all the co-sharers. An undivided 1/3 of the property, involved in pattah No. 395, was sold on 4-12-1112 M. E. under the Revenue Recovery Act, and confirmed on 26-4-1115, to one Sankara Pillai. On 24-7-1115 the; auction-purchaser obtained symbolical delivery of the share purchased by him. On 19-11-1954, he assigned his rights to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has become the owner of an undivided 1/3 share in the property. 3. The plaintiff claims partition and possession of his share, from defendants 1 to 23 who are owners of the other 2/3 share in the property. The 17th defendant contended that for non-joinder-of others who are also co-sharers to the property the instant suit for partition has to fail and that this suit instituted beyond 12 years of the revenue sale and delivery thereunder, is beyond limitation. The Courts below have accepted both the contentions and have dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal. 4. Counsel for appellant contends that the plaintiff has, by virtue of revenue sale and the auction-purchaser's assignment, become a co-sharer to the property and that, there being no proof of any denial of his title or of his exclusion or ouster by the other co-sharers in possession before this suit, the normal presumption of law that a cosharer's possession of the entire property is on behalf of all its co-sharers applies, and therefore no question of adverse- possession and therefore of limitation arises in the ease. 5. In Biswanath Chakravarti v. Rabija Khatun AIR. 1929 Calcutta 250, where the plaintiff was the court¬auction-purchaser of the rights of a cosharer and the suit was for partition more than 12 years after his purchase, Manmotha Nath Mukherji J., with concurrence of Rankin C. J., decreed the suit, holding'As a general proposition the entry of one co-tenant, in the absence of clear proof to the contrary, enures for the benefit of all. The law makes a presumption that the relation between co-tenants is amicable rather than hostile; and regards the acts of one co-tenant as being in subordination of the title of all the co-tenants, for by so regarding they may be made to promote the interest of all. This rule prevails not merely on behalf of those who are co-tenants when the entry was mads, but extends to all who afterwards acquire undivided interests in the property." In Visvanath Krishna Gokhale v. Mahadeo Arjun Kokate AIR. 1960 Bom. 50, where the plaintiff was an assignee of undivided interests of a separated member of a Hindu family, Chainani J., with concurrence of Badkas J., observed: "Mr. Kotwal has urged that the rule that possession of one co-owner must be deemed to be the possession of all the co-owners does not apply in the case of a purchaser from a co-ownsr and that the purchaser of the share of a co-owner must file a suit for possession within twelve years from the date of his purchase and not within twelve years from the date on which bis title is actually denied ...By his purchase of Kashinath's undivided interest, Lele became a co-owner along with Kashinath's brothers. The possession of the properties by the defendants thereafter was the possession on behalf of all the co-owners, including Lele and subsequently his transferee, the plaintiff. Their possession became adverse when Lele's title was denied by the defendants...." and held the suit instituted within 12 years of that denial to be within time. In Muhammed Kaliba Rawther v. Muhammed Abdullah Rowther AIR 1963 Madras 84 Veeraswami J., with concurrence of Ganapatia Pillai J., held likewise, in a suit for partition and possession by the alienee of some cosharers who were not in possession, thus: 'It is well settled law,.... that possession in the hands of a co-sharer of a property owned in common is possession on behalf of all the co-sharers. that possession in the hands of a co-sharer of a property owned in common is possession on behalf of all the co-sharers. Implicit in this proposition is the further position in law that mere non participation in the receipts from such immovable property or mere inaction in respect of it for any length of time on the part of one or more of the co-sharers is not regarded as amounting to ouster or as investing the possession in the bands of one of the co-sharers with an adverse character so as to enable him to prescribe against the other co-sharers. It is only when acts are clearly proved on the part of the co-sharer in possession which would be inconsistent with any other co-sharer being entitled to any possession or interest in any part of the property, it can be said that any question of ouster of the cosharers not in possession can arise. In the absence of such ouster there will no room for adverse possession or prescription in favour of the co-sharer in possession. The contention for the appellant, however, is that these principles applicable to a co-sharer cannot extend to his alienee We are unable to uphold the contention. It seems to us that, neither on principle nor on authority can an alienee from a co-sharer, .... be regarded as standing on a special footing different from the position of his alienor. It is clear that what the co-sharer conveyed to his alienee is bis right, title and interest in his share which will take with it also the right to sue for partition and recover separate possession of such share. If the co-sharer who was the alienor is not barred by time because for over 12 years he took no action either to share possession of the property or income therefrom or sue for partition we fail to see any principle or reason why his alienee should be placed on a different footing." and decreed the suit even though it was more than 12 years after the plaintiff's purchase of a share in the property. In Ouseph v. Philomina, 1966 KLT 12, where the plaintiff was the court-auction-purchaser of the undivided share of a co-owner and the suit for partition of her moiety 15 years after the auction-purchase, I held the suit to be in time because: The legal presumption of a cosharer's possession being on behalf of all co-sharers applies well in the circumstances; ...." 6. Counsel for respondents cited Mandeata Narasimhaswami v. Mamidi China Venkata Sivayya AIR 1961 A.P. 279, where a contrary view has been expressed by Srinivasachari J., with concurrence of Chandra Reddy CJ, thus "The principle that the possession of one coparcener is the possession of all could have no application when a purchaser from an undivided coparcener intervenes. This has been settled as early as is the case of Muttusami v. Ramakrishna ILR.12 Madras 292. It was held therein that possession of the non-alienating coparceners would be adverse to the alienee. Therefore, the argument that there will be no question of adverse possession in so far as the alienee is concerned, cannot be accepted." This decision merely follows the dictum in Muttusami v Ramakrishna ILR.12 Madras 292 where the reason for the dictum is given thus: "Co-parcenery as recognised by Hindu Law, can only subsist between the members of a joint Hindu family, and the contention that the possession of one co-parcener is the possession of all for purposes of limitation can have no application as between a purchaser from one of the co-parceners and the other members of the family." This decision seems to draw a distinction between an assignee of a Hindu coparcener and an assignee of a co-owner probably on the ground that the share of the former is not defined and is liable to fluctuation until partition while the share of the latter is definite and fixed. Though the distinction does not appear to me substantial in regard to commonness of possession, the decisions are easily distinguished on the above said distinction itself. Of course, there is another line of decisions which say that the presumption of a co-sharer not being adverse to the other co-sharers does not extend to possession of an alienee from one co-sharer of the entire property as if it belonged to him exclusively. With the concurrence of M S Menon C. J., I have held so in John v. Joseph ILR 1964 (1) Ker. 211. With the concurrence of M S Menon C. J., I have held so in John v. Joseph ILR 1964 (1) Ker. 211. In those cases, the alienation concerned was of the entire property though it was partly unauthorised and the alienee entered possession of the entire property as belonging to himself under that alienation, without acknowledging any co-ownership. Such possession might spell ouster of other co-sharers if there are circumstances to show that they were aware of the nature of the alienee's possession. In the present case the plaintiff is only a purchaser of a share and there is no evidence to show that the defendants at any time before this suit claimed to own more than a share in the property. 7. The Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff on the further ground of non joinder of all co-sharers. In doing so, they have relied largely on a statement filed by the 17th defendant on 7-8-1961 where a number of persons are shown as having interests in the property, but have apparently overlooked the fact that the plaintiff has, in his reply to that statement asserted that none of the persons enumerated by the 17th defendant, except one who has been impleaded, on an application of 14-8-1961, as the 20th defendant, have any present interest in the property, and that all persons who have a present interest in the property have been made parties to the suit. The 17th defendant has produced a partition deed of 1936 that concerned one of the branches of the co-owners; but it cannot prove that in 1956 (20 years later) the persons mentioned therein continued to be interested in the property. None who is purported to have an interest in the property has been examined in the case. The question is not whether in 1936 any other person had an interest in the property: the question is whether on the date of this suit, there was any person interested in the suit property, other than the plaintiff and the defendants in this suit. I am afraid the question has been misconceived by the Courts below and in view of the definite assertion of the plaintiff that all persons interested have been made parties to the suit, there must be definite proof of existence of co-sharers to the property not been impleaded before the plaintiff can be non-suited. I am afraid the question has been misconceived by the Courts below and in view of the definite assertion of the plaintiff that all persons interested have been made parties to the suit, there must be definite proof of existence of co-sharers to the property not been impleaded before the plaintiff can be non-suited. In the result the decree of the Court below is set aside and the suit is remitted to the Court of first instance for a revised disposal after giving an opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective pleas on issues Nos. 8 and 9. In the circumstances of the case I would direct the parties to suffer heir respective costs here and in the Court below.