JUDGMENT : R. MALA, J. 1. The legal heirs of the plaintiff, who lost the legal battle before both the Courts below have come forward with this second appeal against the judgment and decree of Principal District Judge, Dindigul, in A.S. No. 69 of 2000 dated 25.11.2003, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1580 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul. 2. The father of the appellants 2 to 5, as plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in new S. No. 296/1 to the extent of 2 acres 59 cents, within the stated boundaries. The suit property is originally owned by one Duraisamy Servai, son of Pachai Servai, from whom, the plaintiff's mother, who is none other than the mother-in-law of the first defendant viz., Periyakkal @ Karuppayee Ammal, purchased under sale deed dated 02.09.1946. From the date of purchase, she enjoying the property. Periyakkal @ Karuppayee Ammal is having three children viz., Thonthi Servai, Veerasamy Servai and Kulanthai Servai. The first defendant is the wife of Thonthi Servai. Their children are defendants 2 to 5. On 15.07.1968, she sold the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,750/-. Even though, in the sale deed, it was stated that the plaintiff had purchased only 1 acre 73 cents, on the date of purchase onwards, he is in possession and enjoyment of the entire property viz., 2 acre 59 cents, openly, continuously and uninterruptedly for more than statutory period with the knowledge of the defendants and one Veerasamy, who is the brother of the plaintiff and his legal heirs and hence, he prescribed title by ouster. Patta has been issued in his name and he has paid kist and also he has developed the property and put up a well and 5 H.P. Motor and raised crops and enjoying the property. No one can claim right over the property. The plaintiff's mother Periyakkal @ Karuppayee Ammal died intestate 15 years back, leaving behind the plaintiff and first defendant's husband Thonthi Servai and Veerasamy Servai as her legal heirs. After her death, no one is claimed title over the property. Both Thonthi Servai and Veerasamy Servai are the attestors of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's mother Periyakkal @ Karuppayee Ammal died intestate 15 years back, leaving behind the plaintiff and first defendant's husband Thonthi Servai and Veerasamy Servai as her legal heirs. After her death, no one is claimed title over the property. Both Thonthi Servai and Veerasamy Servai are the attestors of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Now, the defendants, who are the legal heirs of Thonthi Servai claiming title as if the property is inherited and they have 1/3 share and issued notice dated 24.06.1995. Even though reply has been given, they are attempted to interfere the possession of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit for declaration and injunction. 3. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed a detailed written statement stating that the property is the ancestral property and the sale deed is not true and genuine. 86 cents has been enjoyed by Thonthi Servai along with the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled only 1 acre 73 cents. In 1995, the plaintiff mortgaged the suit property i.e. 1 acre and 73 cents only. Now, he has filed the false suit. He is entitled only 1 acre 73 cents and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit in respect of 86 cents. 4. The Trial Court, after considering the plaint and written statement, framed necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in respect of 1 acre 73 cents and dismissed the suit in respect of remaining 86 cents. Against which, the defendants preferred an appeal. The appeal has been dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, against which, the present second appeal has been preferred. 5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration of the second appeal:- 1. Whether the Courts below ought to have held that the plaintiff had absolute title and possession of the entire 2 acres 59 cents be sale as well as by prescription? 2. Whether the finding of the learned District Judge without to consider the oral evidence valid? Substantial Questions of Law 1 and 2: 6. The admitted facts are as follows:- The suit property has been purchased by Periyakkal @ Karyppayee Ammal under Ex.A1 dated 02.09.1946. She has three children viz., Thonthi Servai, Kulandai Servai and Veerasamy Servai. Kulandai Servai is the plaintiff/first appellant herein. Substantial Questions of Law 1 and 2: 6. The admitted facts are as follows:- The suit property has been purchased by Periyakkal @ Karyppayee Ammal under Ex.A1 dated 02.09.1946. She has three children viz., Thonthi Servai, Kulandai Servai and Veerasamy Servai. Kulandai Servai is the plaintiff/first appellant herein. Thonthi Servai is the husband of first defendant/first respondent herein. Their children are the defendants 2 to 5/1 to 4 respondents herein. The plaintiff/first appellant herein has purchased 1 acre 73 cents under Ex.A2, which is not disputed. Patta has been issued under Ex.A3. Kist receipt has been marked as Ex.A4 series. Certificate has been issued by Tahsildar, in respect of Small Formers under Ex.A5. Official memo is marked as Ex.A6 and notice sent by the defendant is Ex.A7 and reply and acknowledgement are marked as Ex.A8 and A9. The trial Court and first appellate Court have granted decree in respect of 1 acre 73 cents out of 2 acre 59 cents on the basis of Ex.A2. Though the suit has been filed for declaration and injunction for entire 2 acre 53 cents, the trial Court has granted declaration and injunction in respect of 1 acre 73 cents with proportionate share in the motor pump set. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, they prescribed title by adverse possession by ouster. It is pertinent to note that adverse possession that too against co-owner by prescriptive title by ouster, adverse possession has to be specifically pleaded and proved by the person, who pleaded adverse possession. In the plaint paragraph No. 4, it was stated that the plaintiff is enjoying the property openly, continuously and uninterruptedly with the knowledge of other co-owners for more than statutory period, by prescribed title by adverse possession. 8. Now, this Court has to decide as to whether the adverse possession has been proved by the plaintiff by way of letting oral evidence or documentary evidence? 9. As already stated, in respect of 1 acre 73 cents is concerned, there is no quarrel. The only question is as to whether the plaintiff is in enjoyment of entire 2 acre 59 cents? ExA3 is a document relating to the year 1985, wherein, it has been stated that patta has been issued in respect of 1.05.0 hectare. 9. As already stated, in respect of 1 acre 73 cents is concerned, there is no quarrel. The only question is as to whether the plaintiff is in enjoyment of entire 2 acre 59 cents? ExA3 is a document relating to the year 1985, wherein, it has been stated that patta has been issued in respect of 1.05.0 hectare. The mother of the plaintiff died in the year 1981, but, the document came into effect in the year 1985. Ex.A4 series is kist receipts. In Ex.A3, patta number has been mentioned as 619. However, in Ex.A4 series, kist has been paid for the patta number 619 only in the year 1987 viz., fasli 1396. Ex.A5 is the Form of certificate of Small Formers eligible for free supply of power, wherein, S. No. 296/1 has been mentioned. It is true in S. No. 296/1, the plaintiff is the owner of 1 acre 73 cents. Issuance of certificate will not confer any right in respect of remaining 86 cents. The said certificate has been issued in 1985 after issuance of chitta Ex.A3. Ex.A6 memorandum is dated 14.12.1995. The suit is of the year 1996. Kulandai Servai has given petition before Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul for change of patta, wherein, it was stated that no patta has been changed and the patta stands in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that after 1985 only, patta has been changed and tax has been paid. 10. The defendants have also filed documents to show that they have paid kist for the years 1982, 1984 and 1985. As per Ex.A4, kist has been paid for patta No. 619 in 1987. After 1994, the defendants have paid kist for patta No. 619. Ex.B3 shows that kist has been paid for patta No. 490 on 19.06.1996 in respect of S. No. 296/1, which was stands in the name of Kulandai Servai. Ex.B4 kist receipt paid for the year 1996-97 for patta No. 3218, which stands in the name of Kuppayee Ammal Wife of Thonthi Servai in S.No. 296/1A to the extent of 27 ares. Ex.B5 is kist receipt for patta No. 2318, 619 and 3218 also. Ex.B6 is the encumbrance certificate regarding the sale deed in respect of the suit property. Kulanthai Servai has executed a mortgage deed in favour of Pithalaipatti Co-operative Agricultural Bank Limited on 13.05.1969 vide document No. 1718/1969. Ex.B5 is kist receipt for patta No. 2318, 619 and 3218 also. Ex.B6 is the encumbrance certificate regarding the sale deed in respect of the suit property. Kulanthai Servai has executed a mortgage deed in favour of Pithalaipatti Co-operative Agricultural Bank Limited on 13.05.1969 vide document No. 1718/1969. Ex.B7 is also encumbrance certificate. The documents filed by the defendant would show that they are also in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 11. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court has correctly held that the plaintiff/first appellant herein has not proved that he is in exclusive possession of the entire 2 acre 59 cents, thereby prescribed title by adverse possession. As per Ex.B6 and B7, the first appellant has mortgaged the property to the extent of 1 acre 73 cents and obtained a loan. Once the plaintiff/first appellant pleaded ouster, he has to establish that he has been in possession of the property asserting the hostile title against the other co-sharers and to the knowledge of the co-owners openly, continuously and uninterruptedly for a statutory period. But, he has not proved the same. Hence, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff/first appellant herein is entitled 1 acre 73 cents for declaration. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in respect of 86 cents is concerned, the first appellant is entitled 1/3 share as heir by succession. There is no quarrel over the same. Admittedly, Periyakkal @ Karuppayee Ammal is the owner of the property. She has purchased the property under Ex.A1. The total extent of the property is 2 acre 59 cents, out of which, she sold 1 acre 73 cents under Ex.A2. She died intestate, leaving behind Thonthi Servai, Veerasamy Servai and Kulanthai Servai. So the legal heirs of Periyakkal @ Karuppayee Ammal are entitled equal share in the property. Thonthi Servai died and Veerasamy also died. Therefore, Kulanthai Servai is entitled his 1/3 share in the suit property. That can be decided in separate suit for partition and not in this suit. In such circumstances, I am of the view that both the Courts below have considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that the appellants are not prescribed title by adverse possession by ouster against the co-owners. That can be decided in separate suit for partition and not in this suit. In such circumstances, I am of the view that both the Courts below have considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that the appellants are not prescribed title by adverse possession by ouster against the co-owners. The first appellate Court has also considered the same and came to the correct conclusion and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 13. In view of the answers given to substantial questions of law 1 and 2, the decree and judgment of both the Courts below do not warrant any interference and the same is hereby confirmed. Consequently, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.