Mere occupation or enjoyment of management of joint property by the co-sharer does not constitute adverse possession as against the other co-sharers, unless there is a disclaimer of the latter’s title by open assertion of a hostile title by the former, or unless there is actual ouster or some act equivalent to ouster.
The exclusive possession of one co-sharer, even though coupled with the non-payment of profits cannot amount to a clear adverse possession unless there has been an ouster of the other co-partners to their knowledge and openly. In the absence of a clear demand and a clear refusal, the possession of one co-sharer cannot become adverse as against the other.
In order to destroy a co sharer’s title it must not only be shown that the other co-sharer was in exclusive possession of joint property but that there was a denial of title and an ouster of the former co-sharer something equivalent to it.
Image Source: quintestate.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The mere fact that one co-sharer is in exclusive possession of a joint property would not amount to a destroy of title or an ouster so as to destory his title. This principle applies even more strongly where that co-sharer is in possession as representing all the co-sharers.
The question whether exclusive possession by a co-share amount to an ouster or not, depends upon the circumstances of each case. If one co-sharer separately occupies a portion of the common land without objection from his co-sharers and with their express or implied consent, such sole possession is not to be regarded as amounting to exclusion or ouster of the other co-sharers from the possession of that portion.
On the other hand, if the separate possession of a co-sharer is continued after objection from any of his co-sharers and in defiance of their claim to be in joint possession, then the co sharers who are excluded and ousted from joint possession are entitled to bring a suit to obtain possession of the common property.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Unless express ouster is established the possession of one co-sharer cannot be adverse against the other co-sharer.