In Allen v. Batchelder, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 453, 457, 459 N.E.2d 129 (1984), the Appeals Court rejected the argument that a co-tenant must have knowledge that he is being dispossessed. In that case, defendants similar to Defendants in the case at bar were not aware of any potential claim in a parcel of land until publication of the registration petition, and the Allen defendants' predecessors similarly had never made a claim of title. See Allen, 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 455. The Allen defendants argued that an absent co-tenant's interest could not be defeated without a communication of an ouster to that co-tenant. See id. at 456. The Appeals Court did not agree, finding that actual knowledge of disseisin was not necessary. See id. at 457. Therefore, that Defendants did not know of their potential ownership interest in Locus is to no avail. Furthermore, as to whether an absent co-tenant's knowledge has relevance to any adverse use by another co-tenant, the relevant inquiry "has always been what knowledge the absent party 'must be deemed to have had.'" Id. The failure to make a claim, without any reason for neglect or omission to assert such a right, "furnishes evidence from which the trier of fact ought to infer an actual ouster and adverse possession. " Id. The Court acknowledged that the extra ingredient, ouster, is necessary to establish adverse possession against a cotenant, but found that ouster could be inferred from long periods of exclusive possession. As stated in Allen, it is "well settled that a long exclusive and uninterrupted possession by one, without any possession, or claim for profits by the other, is evidence from which a fact finder may and ought to infer an actual ouster." Allen, 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 456.