JUDGMENT Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. She filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in plaint A schedule and B schedule properties. 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff is the daughter of Anandan Nair, a predeceased son of Kalliani Amma to whom the plaint properties belonged. A schedule property belonged to Kalliani Amma exclusively, while B schedule properties belonged to the thavazhi of Kalliani Amma. There were 7 members in the thavazhi at the time when Kalliani Amma died. Kalliani Amma thus was entitled to 1/7th share in B schedule properties. Kalliani Amma died in the year 1961. On her death, her properties devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as co-owners. The plaintiff being the daughter of a predeceased son of Kalliani Amma, is entitled to 1/4th share in A schedule property and 1/28th share in B schedule properties. The plaintiff has also claimed her share of profits for three years prior to the filing of the suit. 3. The contesting defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The main and perhaps the only contention seriously raised is that the plaintiff lost her right to claim her share in the properties on account of ouster, limitation and adverse possession. In support of this contention they referred to Ext. B-3 karar, partitioning these properties between defendants 1 to 3 in the year 1962. After the partition the respective allottees have been transacting upon their allotted shares as if they are the full and absolute owners thereof. The 2nd defendant had even sold a portion of the property to a stranger. The stranger assignee has constructed a house in the said property. Even before the partition in 1962, the 3rd defendant has constructed a house with her own funds in item No. 1 of B schedule properties. The 2nd defendant had constructed a shop building in plaint A schedule property with his own money. There are various other transactions of similar nature. Although she was aware of these transaction, the plaintiff never thought it necessary to challenge them until she filed this suit for partition. These transactions would establish that defendants 1 to 3 have consistently been asserting hostile title to the properties to the knowledge of the plaintiff. 4. There are various other transactions of similar nature. Although she was aware of these transaction, the plaintiff never thought it necessary to challenge them until she filed this suit for partition. These transactions would establish that defendants 1 to 3 have consistently been asserting hostile title to the properties to the knowledge of the plaintiff. 4. The court below after elaborately considering these aspects of the case held that the plaintiff though entitled to the share in the properties as prayed for in the plaint has lost her right by ouster, limitation and adverse possession. The court below has also found incidentally that the plaintiff has abandoned her rights over the properties in not taking any steps to get her share in the properties for more than 12 years. 5. It is this judgment that is under attack in this appeal. 6. The only point urged before us is that the contesting defendants have not established ouster resulting in loss of the rights of the plaintiff to claim partition and separate possession of her share in the plaint schedule properties. The learned counsel in this connection submitted that neither the documentary evidence nor oral evidence adduced in the case is capable of establishing ouster, There is nothing on record to show that the contesting defendants have been asserting a hostile title to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the learned counsel submits. 7. Under law the possession of one coowner, is presumed to be on behalf of all the coowners, Because of this presumption, the law requires, to constitute ouster of a coowner, it is not enough to establish that the other coowners have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties; it should also be established that the coowners in possession have been openly repudiating or denying the title of the other coowner to his knowledge. Such hostile assertion of title should be established by the coowners who want to prove ouster of the other coowners for whose benefit also, they are holding the properties. But this does not mean that the coowner who has been ousted, should be told specifically of the ouster by the other coowners. But where the coowner who has not been participating in the profits for a considerable length of time coupled with other circumstances the courts can presume or infer ouster. But this does not mean that the coowner who has been ousted, should be told specifically of the ouster by the other coowners. But where the coowner who has not been participating in the profits for a considerable length of time coupled with other circumstances the courts can presume or infer ouster. (Vide P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314 . In such cases, because of the long lapse of time hostile assertion and denial of title to the knowledge of the excluded coowner would be difficult to prove. 8. Having understood the law thus, we shall consider the question whether the contesting defendants have proved the ouster pleaded in the case. It is an admitted fact that though Kalliani Amma died in 1961, the plaintiff did not take any steps to set at naught the effect of the various transactions evidenced by Exts. B-3, B-61 and B-63. By Ext. B-3 defendants 1 to 3 partitioned the properties among themselves and in doing so the plaintiff was admittedly excluded. After the partition the second defendant sold a portion of the property in his possession to a stranger, R-7 as is seen from Ext. B-61. The 7th defendant has constructed a building in the said property. The plaintiff as P.W. 1 has admitted that she was aware of the construction aforesaid though she would say the construction was supervised by the second defendant. She however, admits that the seventh defendant is occupying the building. It has come out in evidence that the plaintiff k residing very near the residence of defendants 2 and 3. Again the first defendant had sold a portion of the plaint property (Ext. B-63) allotted to him as per the partition, Ext. B-3, to the 9th defendant. The 9th defendant has been in possession of the said property since the said sale. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe the plaintiff when she says, she was not aware of these transactions. For well nigh 19 years the plaintiff slept over her rights. 9. From these circumstances, it can be inferred or in any event presumed that the assertion of hostile title by defendants 1 to 3, was to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is all the more so, because the plaintiff has acquiesced in these transactions without any demur for over fourteen years. 9. From these circumstances, it can be inferred or in any event presumed that the assertion of hostile title by defendants 1 to 3, was to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is all the more so, because the plaintiff has acquiesced in these transactions without any demur for over fourteen years. The court below therefore is justified in holding that the plaintiff has lost her right by adverse possession, limitation and ouster. 10. As already stated the plaintiff - appellant has not raised any other plea before us. The appeal therefore is without merits. The appeal accordingly is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.