Two co-owners sought relief under the Partition Act regarding two severed parcels of land originally purchased jointly.
The parties disputed their respective beneficial interests arising from alleged unequal financial contributions decades earlier.
The court held that the respondent failed to prove unequal ownership and therefore the parties were presumed to hold equal interests as tenants‑in‑common.
Given the separate nature of the parcels and the long-standing use arrangements, the court vested one parcel entirely in each party rather than ordering a sale or unequal division.
