At page 93 and 94 the evidence runs this:—
gstaP ®0 oMSsnOca) So® Sqckd©) SeSSoxtoai ®§0 oi§^§sax3o)od g0®osaQe o0ego0eJ og&@> ooe» OetoOQ Sts®. ®® o® ©0 0e3©®Oc®ed0 S0). 68^-ssc©S8 dtssd. eo§£3) 2 o©S ©aJSaoScu ax®© §oa5 am 6 ©©©©Gtooa) @0 oozd© SoSam ®® ©03 es$§ Sm© go© g©ea© a© ©atoO ©o®. ®® ®@e 6 e®a©0G<3© ®£si©oS® aogqj ax$.
The fact that old coconut trees had come down and new ones werestill not bearing cannot be a ground to show either that the plaintiffhad given up his claim to co-ownership or that the defendants hadasserted their right to the plaintiff’s half share. It appears that whileCyril was prepared to purchase the plaintiff’s share recognising theplaintiff’s rights, Maria the wife was trying to claim title to the plaintiff’sshare.
Such secret intentions of greed or desire in one’s mind cannot putan end to the title of another co-owner. That is why “an ouster orsomething equivalent to an ouster" has been recognised by law asbeing necessary to make long, continued, uninterrupted andundisturbed possession by a co-owner turn adverse.
This Court therefore sees no reason to interfere with the judgmentof the learned District Judge dated 03.04.85. The appeal is dismissedwith taxed costs payable by the appellants to the respondent.
Appeal dismissed.