JUDGMENT - S.D. PANDIT, J.:---Shri Gafurbhai Chhotabhai Maniyar the original plaintiff in Reguler Civil Suit No. 928 of 1976 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dindori has come in the Second Appeal before this Court. 2. The plaintiff Gafurbhai is the son of Chhotabhai Maniyar. The original defendent Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar is real uncle of the plaintiff Gafoorbhai Chotubhai Maniyar. It is the case of the original plaintiff that his fathers father Minyabhai had left behind him the moveable properties described in schedule "A" annexed to the plaint. He died about 46 years prior to the date of the suit. After his death, the property went in possession of his uncle Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar and the said Baleminya is not ready and willing to give him his share in the property, and therefore, he filed the suit to get partition and separate possession of his ½ share in the suit properties. 3. The respondent-original defendant had died during the pendency of the suit and his daughter Smt. Sugrabai Fakirmohamed Maniyar was brought on record as his legal heir and representative and the said Sugrabai contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement at Exh. 23. She has contended that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit property. According to her, during the life time of her father, her grand-father Minyabhai Rahimbhai had effected the partition on 14th April, 1927. In the said partition, the plaintiff was given a house property at Saikheda and remaining property went to the share of Minyabhai Rahimbhai and her father Baleminya. Acording to her there is a separation between her father and the plaintiff in the year 1927 and consequently, the plaintiffs suit for partition was not tenable in law. She has further contended that Minyabhai Rahimbhai had executed will on 5th August, 1929 and by this will, he has given whole of the property to the share of her father. She has further contended that her father was in occupation and possession of the said property since 1927 and he has perfected his title by adverse possession for more than 12 years, and therefore, the plaintiffs suit is barred by law of limitation, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. 4. She has further contended that her father was in occupation and possession of the said property since 1927 and he has perfected his title by adverse possession for more than 12 years, and therefore, the plaintiffs suit is barred by law of limitation, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. 4. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has settled as many as 7 issues and recorded the evidence for both sides. The trial Court upheld the contention of the defendant that the original defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar had perfected his title by adverse possession for more than 12 years and consequently, the plaintiffs suit was barred by law of limitation. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs. 5. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant had preferred Civil Appeal No. 380 of 1981 in the District Court, Nashik. The appellate Court concurred with the trial Court as regards the contention of the defendant that the defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar had perfected his title by adverse possession for more than 12 years, and the appellate Court, therefore, held that the suit was barred by law of limitation, and the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to get the partition or separate possession of his share, and thus, dismissed the appeal preferred by the present appellant-original plaintiff. 6. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant-original plaintiff has come in second appeal before this Court. It is not at all in dispute that the property in question i.e. the suit property described in Schedule "A" to the plaint was owned by Minyabhai Rahimbhai, the grand father of the appellant-original plaintiff as well as the respondent-original defendants daughter. It is also not in dispute that before his death the said Minyabhai Rahimbhai had effected one partition dividing the property between himself and his two sons i.e. Chotubhai and Baleminya but it is conceded by the learned advocates for both sides that under the Mohamedan law, no partition could be effected during the lifetime of the father of the defendant and the first appellate Court has also clearly held that there could not be a valid partition during the lifetime of Minyabhai. Consequently, the plaintiffs stand could be resisted by contending that there was partition during the lifetime of Minyabhai. Consequently, the plaintiffs stand could be resisted by contending that there was partition during the lifetime of Minyabhai. It must be mentioned here that no material is produced before the trial Court to show that what property was assigned to each of three persons viz. Minyabhai, Chotubhai and Baleminya. Therefore, it is not possible to hold as to whether the oppenant-respondents father Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar has received any property. The material which is brought on record also shows that the said partition was never acted upon by Minyabhai himself as he himself has sold out the house property at Saikheda which is alleged to have been come to the share of the appellants father. Therefore, in view of this position, the claim of the appellant-original will have to be considered. 7. At the costs of the repeatation, it must be stated that there is no dispute about the relationship of the appellant-original plaintiff and respondent-original defendant and there is no dispute of the fact that the suit property was left behind by Minyabhai Rahimbhai. It is also not in dispute that since the time of the death of Minyabhai Rahimbhai, the original defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar came in occupation and possession of the suit property but merely because Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar is in occupation and possession of the suit property in question, it could not be said that his occupation and possession was adverse possession to the plaintiff since the death of Minyabhai Rahimbhai. The plaintiff and defendant are co-owners. The possession of one co-owner or co-tenant is not deemed adverse to other co-owner or co-tenant. The existance of the relation of parties does not preclude one co-tenant from establishing adverse possession in fact as against the other co-tenants. Much stronger evidence is required to show an adverse possession held by a tenant in common than by stranger. The possession of one co-owner or co-tenant is not deemed adverse to other co-owner or co-tenant. The existance of the relation of parties does not preclude one co-tenant from establishing adverse possession in fact as against the other co-tenants. Much stronger evidence is required to show an adverse possession held by a tenant in common than by stranger. A co-owner will not be permitted to claim the protection of the statutes of limitation, unless it clearly appears that he has repudiated the title of his co-owner, and is holding adversely to him, it must further be established that the fact of adverse holding was brought home to the co-owner, either by information to that effect given by the tenant in-common asserting the adverse right, or there must be outward acts of exclusive ownership of such a nature as to give notice to the co-tenant that an adverse possession and disseisin are intended to be asserted, in other words, "a silent possession, accompanied with no act which can ammount to an ouster or give notice to his co-owner that his possession is adverse, ought not to be construed into an adverse, possession," mere possession, however exclusive or long continued, if silent, cannot give one co-owner in possession title as against the other co-owner. The entry and possession of one co-owner or tenant-in-common is ordinarily deemed to be the entry and possession of all the co-owner tenants, and this presumption will prevail in favour of all, until some notarious act of ouster or adverse possession by the party so entering is brought home to the knowledge or notice of the others, when this occurs, the possession is from that period treated as adverse to the other co-owner tenants. 8. Therefore, it is necessary for the defendant to show that he was holding property by an adverse possession. He must show that there was unequivocal act of ouster of the co-owner. There must be open denial of the title of the person who is entitled to possess the exclusing property. Therefore, it must be seen from the material on record as to whether both courts below were justified in upholding the claim of the adverse possession raised by the respondent-original defendant. 9. There must be open denial of the title of the person who is entitled to possess the exclusing property. Therefore, it must be seen from the material on record as to whether both courts below were justified in upholding the claim of the adverse possession raised by the respondent-original defendant. 9. At the cost of the repeatation, it must be said that there is no dispute that the defendant is in possession and occupation of the property in question since the death of his father. Now, if the pleadings of the respondent-original defendant is seen then it is quiet clear that there is no claim made by the defendant that after the death of his father, the plaintiffs father had tried to get his share and that he has refused to give him his share.. He has not pleaded and no oral evidence and documentary evidence on record to show that he was claiming adverse against the plaintiff and that he was committing acts which would amount to ouster of the plaintiff or his father. From the material on record, it seems that the real ouster of the title to the property in question by the defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar came into existence for the first time in the year 1973 or thereabout. It seems from the material on record that the city survey proceedings were started in the year 1973, and at the time of City Survey, the appellant tried to get his name entered against the property in question and at that time, the claim of the appellant was resisted by the defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar. Because of his resistance, his name was not entered against the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff had given a public notice in a local daily and he also gave a notice of Exh. 44 on 15th September, 1973 calling upon the defendant to give him his ½ share in the property and that the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant by his reply dated 27th September, 1973 at Exh. 45. Therefore, this denial of his share in the year 1973 by reply to his notice is the first act of adverse claim made by the defendant against the plaintiff. 10. 45. Therefore, this denial of his share in the year 1973 by reply to his notice is the first act of adverse claim made by the defendant against the plaintiff. 10. No doubt, it is an admitted fact that Minyabhai Rahimbhai has died sometime in the year 1930-31 and the present plaintiff has filed the present suit on 11th November, 1976 and had issued the notice of Exh. 44 on 15th September, 1973 but it seems that the defendant as well as plaintiff and more particulary the defendant was aware of the partition deed executed on 14th April, 1927 by Minyabhai Rahimbhai and on account of existence of this partition deed to which the present plaintiff was not a party and as there was no real dispute between parties regarding the city survey. There was delay in filing the suit or making a claim issuing a notice of Exh. 44. But merely because of the same, it could not be said that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession. 11. In the case of (Syed Shah Gulam Ghouse Mohiuddin and others v. Syed Shah Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Qadri)1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 2184, the following principles are laid down : "Possession of one co-owner is presumed to be the possession of all the co-owners unless it is established that the possession of the co-owner is in denial of title of co-owners and the possession is in hostility to co-owners by exclusion of them. Ouster is an unequivocal act of assertion of title. There has to be open denial of title to the parties who are entitled to it by exclusing and ousting them." The facts of the said case before the Supreme Court are similar to the facts before me. In that case the parties had effected a partition and at the time of effecting partition he had left certain properties without effecting partition presuming that they belong to Dargah and Khankah properties. Though the properties were in possession and occupation of the defendant who was in possession of the same along with other properties at the time of effecting partition. Thereafter, after the passage of some years, it was realised by the plaintiff that the properties were not Dargah and Khankah properties and that they were the properties belonging to the family and they were entitled to share in the same. Thereafter, after the passage of some years, it was realised by the plaintiff that the properties were not Dargah and Khankah properties and that they were the properties belonging to the family and they were entitled to share in the same. In that case, it has been held by the Supreme Court that even though the defendants were in occupation and possession of those properties exclusively, and excluding the plaintiff, they cannot perfect their title by an adverse possession. In the instant case before me, it is the contention of the defendant that her grand father has effected partition during his lifetime and because of the same, the plaintiffs suit is not tenable. But parties being Mohemadan, the partition during the lifetime of her father is not tenable and the plaintiffs father was to get a share only after the death of his father. Therefore, merely because the plaintiffs father was under impression that there was partition effected by father and original the defendant continued to be in possession and occupation of the suit property that could not amount to the defendants adverse possession against the plaintiff so as to loose his right by prescription. 12. If the pleadings of the defendant is considered, it becomes clear that in the pleadings, the defendant has no where alleged about the ouster or hostility committed by him against the plaintiff. In his written statement, he has not pleaded any fact or incident by which it could be said that the defendant had brought to the notice of the plaintiff is hostility towards the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, only the defendant Sugrabai Fakir Mohamed Maniyar has entered into the witness box and in her examination-in-chief, she has not stated any fact from which it could be inferred that her father was holding adversely against the present plaintiff. No doubt from the evidence of the defendant Smt. Sugrabai as well as the evidence of the plaintiff Gafoorbhai, it is quiet clear that the original defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar was in possession and occupation of the property in question and since the death of the father of the defendant. But mere possession would not amount to an adverse possession against the co-owner. As there are no acts of either hostility or ouster committed by the defendant towards the plaintiff in respect of the property in question. 13. But mere possession would not amount to an adverse possession against the co-owner. As there are no acts of either hostility or ouster committed by the defendant towards the plaintiff in respect of the property in question. 13. The defendant has admitted that the plaintiff had paid Grampanchayat taxes and revenue taxes of the property in question and the properties in question are entered into in the name of defendant but this fact of paying taxes by him or entering the property in his name could not also amount to acts of either hostility or ouster. The recovery of house tax or revenue tax is made from the person in occupation. Recovery is for the fiscal purpose. Payment of revenue tax or Grampanchayat tax could not amount a hostile act. It must be mentioned here that it is not the claim of the defendant that the properties were entered in his name though the plaintiff had disputed to enter the same in his name. It seems for the first time the act of hostility was shown by the defendant at the time of City Survey. 14. Thus, both the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have merely taken into consideration the continuous possession of the defendant for more than 12 years and because of the continuous open possession of more than 12 years, they have came to the conclusion that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession and that the plaintiff has lost his claim of partition by limitation. They have not taken into consideration that the defendant is a co-owner along with the plaintiff and that the possession of co-owner is on behalf of all the co-owners and he cannot become owner by adverse possession by his mere possession. Thus, both the courts below have committed an error in applying the legal position to the facts of the case, and have therefore, committed a patent error in arriving at the conclusion that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession and that the plaintiff has lost his claim of title by limitation. 15. This brings me to consider the question as to what share the plaintiff is entitled in the properties. The plaintiff has made a claim that he has got ½ share in the properties. 15. This brings me to consider the question as to what share the plaintiff is entitled in the properties. The plaintiff has made a claim that he has got ½ share in the properties. Admittedly, the plaintiff has served a notice of Exhibit 44 on the defendant and in the said notice, the plaintiff has clearly stated that besides his father Chhotubhai and defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar had younger brother by name Lalbhai and the said Lalbhai has 2 sons Sayed Noor and Abdul Razak. The defendant has also clearly averred in her written statement that Minyabhai had executed a will of the property in question and by the said will, he has bequeathed whole of the properties of her father, she has produced on record the said registered Will along with Exhibit 35. The said Will is dated 30th August, 1929 and that the Will is also registered Will and the said document produced is more than 30 years old. A presumption under section 90 would be available for admitting the said document in evidence. Unfortunately, neither the trial Court nor the First Appellate Court had considered the said Will though the contentions regarding the same were raised before them. As the said Will admissible under section 90 of the Evidence Act, I proceed to consider the consequence of the said document by admitting in the same in evidence under section 90 of the Evidence Act. No doubt, by the said Will, the deceased Minyabhai bequeathed all his properties in favour of Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar under the Mohammadan Law. He cannot bequeath the properties beyond 1/3rd share of his property. Therefore, on the strength of the said Will, the original defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar can get only 1/3rd share. Baleminya was all along in possession of property and he claimed the right to possess because of the said Will. It is registered document. Hence his heirs had notice of it. They had not challenged the said Will from 1929. This conduct of them shows that they have considered and accepted that Will. Hence, I hold that will be accepted by heirs of Minyabhai, and therefore, by Will, Minyabhai got 1/3rd share in the suit property. Consequently, only 2/3rd share of the suit property was available for partition on the death of the Minyabhai Rahimbhai. This conduct of them shows that they have considered and accepted that Will. Hence, I hold that will be accepted by heirs of Minyabhai, and therefore, by Will, Minyabhai got 1/3rd share in the suit property. Consequently, only 2/3rd share of the suit property was available for partition on the death of the Minyabhai Rahimbhai. Now in the said 2/3rd share of the properties, there were three shares viz., the plaintiffs father. Lalbhai and Baleminya Rahimbhai. In the circumstances, the plaintiff will get only 2/9th share in the suit property. Parties being Mohemedan, they have got definate share in the property left by the deceased Minyabhai Rahimbhai. Therefore, though other heirs of Minyabhai Rahimbhai are not on record, it is not necessary to dismiss the plaintiffs suit particularly in view of the fact that nobody has taken the contention either in the trial Court or First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 16. Thus, I hold that the present appeal will have to be partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court will have to be set aside and in its place the following decree is passed. 17. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff Gafoorbhai Chhotubhai Maniyar has got 2/9th share in the properties whereas the original defendant Baleminya Minyabhai Maniyar has got 5/9th share in the suit properties. The plaintiff is entitled to get partition and separate possession of his share by metes and bounds. An inquiry be held regarding mesne profit from the date of the suit till the date of the delivery of the possession. 18. The Commissioner be appointed in the trial Court to effect partition and put the plaintiff in possession of his 2/9th share. 19. Both parties bore their costs throughtout. 20. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. Appeal partly allowed. *****