J U D G M E N T This Appeal is preferred by the defendants in O.S.No.136 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsiff, Mummidivaram. 2.The respondents are the plaintiffs in the said suit. They filed the suit for partition of plaint-A schedule property into six equal shares by meets and bounds and to allot two such shares to the plaintiff and deliver possession of the same to him and for other consequential reliefs. After considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the lower Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff though the Judgment, dated 15-11-1988. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial Court, the defendants preferred A.S.No.21 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram and the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the Appeal by confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Appellate Court, the defendants preferred the present Appeal challenging the validity and legality of the Judgments of the Courts below. 3.At the time of admission, the following are the substantial questions of law framed by this Court: 1. Whether the settlement dated 6-7-1955 executed by the limited owner to the parties giving absolute right is valid or not? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable without impleading the original executor of the settlement deed dated 6-7-1955 when the suit itself is based on the said settlement deed? 3. Whether the clause 2 of the settlement deed is having binding effect when there is observation that the executor of the settlement is not having only absolute right to execute the said settlement deed? 4. Whether the adverse possession claimed by the defendants is preferred when the Akula Manikyam not having the absolute rights? 5. Whether the property can be positioned when it is very loss in extent as grand not as shown in schedule without considering the partition deed and without enquiry whether the same extent is acquired by Smt. Akula Manikyam? 4. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. As they are the coparceners, they are entitled to equal shares. The defendants took a plea that they are in exclusive possession of the property since long time, therefore, they perfected their title by adverse possession. 5. Admittedly the suit property is the ancestral property and all the coparceners are entitled, to get share in it. As they are the coparceners, they are entitled to equal shares. The defendants took a plea that they are in exclusive possession of the property since long time, therefore, they perfected their title by adverse possession. 5. Admittedly the suit property is the ancestral property and all the coparceners are entitled, to get share in it. Even if one of the coparceners is in exclusive possession of the property, the other sharers will continue to have the constructive possession over the property and the plea of adverse possession is not available to a coparcener in a joint family property. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on a judgment of this Court in A. SUSBARATNAM v. B. SIVALAK-SHMAMMA(1), wherein it was observed as follows: “Every co-owner has got co-extensive right and interest in every portion of the undivided property as owner thereof. Nobody can predicate that each one has got right, title and interest in a specific item of the joint property till it is partitioned and separate possession is delivered. Under these circumstances, possession of one co-owner is possession on behalf of all the co-owners.” 6. In HARBALAI BEGUM V. MOHD. SAYEED (2), the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is well settled that mere non-participation in the rent and profits of the land of a co-sharer does not amount to an ouster so as to give title by adverse possession to the other co-sharer in possession. Indeed even if the fact is admitted, then the legal position would be that the cosharers in possession would become constructive trustees on behalf of the co-sharer who is not in possession and the right of such co-sharer would be deemed to be protected by the trustees.” 7. From the above legal position, it is clear that a co-sharer, who is not in possession of the property, is deemed to be in constructive possession of the properties, therefore, there cannot be any adverse possession against a co-sharer unless the partition is effected between the parties. 8.In the light of the above circumstances, I find no merits in the Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 9.The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --X—