"Where a tenant in common conveys the whole lot to a third person, and the grantee took possession, claiming the entire lot as his own, this action constitutes a disseizin and ouster of the other tenants in common, and they are barred from asserting their right to such property after the expiration of seven years." Horne v. Howell, 46 Ga. 9; Cain v. Furlow, 47 Ga. 674; Morgan v. Mitchell, 104 Ga. 596 (30 S. E. 792); Street v. Collier, 118 Ga. 470 (6) (45 S. E. 294); Stephens v. Walker, 193 Ga. 330, 332 (3) (18 S. E. 2d, 537); Stalling v. Britt, 204 Ga. 250 (3a) (49 S. E. 2d, 517).

Thomas J. Broadwater and Tobias F. Broadwater brought an action against Frank E. Parker, alleging: The plaintiffs and Use defendant are the common owners of a described tract of land. The plaintiffs each own a one-sixth interest in the land, as the sole surviving heirs of William H. Broadwater, deceased, who inherited a one-third interest in the land from his mother, Fannie Broadwater. The defendant owns a two-thirds interest in the land, having acquired this interest from T. J. Broadwater, an uncle of the plaintiffs. They prayed that the land be partitioned.

The defendant in his answer claimed that he had acquired the entire interest in the land from T. J. Broadwater by deed dated January 2, 1939, and by deed of amplification dated October 9, 1939, and that he has been in open, peaceable, exclusive, adverse, and actual possession of the lands since January 2, 1939, under a bona fide claim of right.

The jury was authorized to find from the evidence that the defendant had been in adverse possession of the property since the date Of his deed from T. J. Broadwater, January 2, 1939, which was recorded January 4, 1939. His deed of amplification from T. J. Broadwater was dated October 9, 1939, and recorded April 6, 1940. These deeds purported to convey the entire interest in the land to the defendant, except for the reservation of a life estate in T. J. Broadwater. There is nothing in the testimony of the defendant to show that he did not purchase the property in good faith under the belief that his grantor had title to the entire interest in the land.

The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.