( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant in this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff died and his son was brought on record as his legal representative.

( 2 ) FOR convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed for (a) partition and separate possession of plaintiff s one-half share in the plaint, a and b schedule properties and (b) directing the defendant to render a full and detailed account of the income from the plaint schedule properties.

( 4 ) PLAINT a schedule consists of immoveable properties and plaint b schedule consists of rice mill, electric motor, starter, items of machinery and furniture in the rice mill.

( 5 ) THE case of the plaintiff, as per the averments in the plaint is :- The defendant is his younger brother. Their father, Eswaraiah, was doing a petty business at the time of his death. Plaintiff and defendant were members of a joint Hindu Family. The defendant was a minor at that time and he was brought up by the plaintiff till he attained majority. Plaintiff started his own business with M/s. Volkart Brothers as a broker in the year 1928 and continued that business till 1930. He started a rice and oil mill at Hindupur in 1950 in the name and style of b. Janardhana Gupta . Plaintiff claims that this business is a separate business. Plaintiff and defendant purchased, under Exs. A-1 to A-6, site from various persons between 1942 to 1955 under registered sale deeds. They constructed the rice and oil mill and groundnut decorticator over that land purchased under Exs. A-l to A-6 and jointly running the said business from the year 1950. Plaintiff shifted to Bangalore, due to health reasons, leaving the management of the business in the hands of the defendant. Since the defendant is acting adversely to the interests of the plaintiff, plaintiff filed the present suit.

( 6 ) THE suit was resisted by thedefendant, admitting the relationship between him and the plaintiff but denying the other averments in the plaint. It is stated that, after 1967 there is no joint business between theplaintiff and the defendant. Plaintiff shifted to Bangalore after the accounts are settled and assets of the joint family are divided between plaintiff and the defendant. On 1-1-1965, plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership and were doing business in the name and style of M/s. B. Janardhana Gupta and Brothers till 31-8-1967, on which date the partnership was dissolved at the instance of the plaintiff. The defendant claims that the plaintiff has no share in the business or other assets after 31-8-1967. Defendant also claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for over the statutory period peacefully, openly and to the knowledge of the plaintiff and, therefore, acquired right to the said properties by adverse possession. It is further averred that the suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiff s share is not maintainable as the suit properties form part of partnership assets and the suit is barred by time.

( 7 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the lower court framed the following issues on 11-7-1979: 1. Whether the business adverted to in the plaint is being jointly conducted by plaintiff and defendant? 2. Whether the dissolution pleaded by the defendant is true? 3. Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint properties? 4. Whether the defendant has perfected his rights by adverse possession? 5. Whether the suit is in time? 6. Whether the Court-fee paid is not correct?

( 8 ) ON 3-8-1981, the following additional issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the plaint a and b schedule properties? 2. To what relief?

( 9 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as P. W. I and two other witnesses and marked Exs. A-l to A-6. Defendant examined none, but marked Exs. B-1 to B-l 1.

( 10 ) AFTER considering the entire material on record, the lower co