Seetiya v. Ukku and Another – sllr 1986 volume 1 page 225

In the case between Seetiya (and co-plaintiffs) and Ukku and another (including the 1st and 4th defendants), the court addressed whether long and separate possession by co-owners, evidenced by planting, fencing, and division of land, is sufficient to establish adverse possession (prescription) and thus terminate joint co-ownership within partition proceedings. It was held that physical separation and sole occupation—even with improvements such as plantations or fence construction—are insufficient to grant prescriptive title absent explicit evidence of ouster or communication of an adverse claim to remaining co-owners. The principle reaffirmed that, among co-owners, prescription runs only where clear acts of ouster are established, consistent with authorities including Corea v. Iseris Appuh