Chandrasena vs. Punchi Menika and Others – sllr 2019 volume 1 page 232

In the matter between Chandrasena (later represented by Punchi Menika) and Punchi Menika with other associated defendants, the court considered the issue of whether co-ownership of the subject property subsisted after an alleged amicable partition effected in 1974. It was held that the co-ownership had terminated due to an earlier amicable partition resulting in separate and divided possession by the parties, thus precluding the maintenance of a judicial partition action. The court reaffirmed the principle that once separate and exclusive possession is established through credible evidence, the basis for co-ownership, essential to a partition suit, is extinguished. Reliance was placed on documentary and oral evidence, as well as on appellate authorities (including CIT v. Rasildal Maneklal;