Heard Sri V.S.R. Murthy, the Counsel representing the appellant.

2. The only substantial question of law argued in elaboration by the learned Counsel representing the appellant is as hereunder:-

“Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar imposed by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932?”

3. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below preferred the present Second Appeal. The respondent herein – the plaintiff Sri Gopalakrishna Rice Mill, Gudur, represented by its Managing Partner filed the suit O.S.No.354/86 on the file of District Munsiff, Gudur, praying for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 and also Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 and ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred appeal A.S.No.6/93 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudur, and the Appellate Court at para 10 framed the points for consideration and discussed the oral and documentary evidence commencing from paras 11 to 28 and ultimately dismissed the appeal with costs.

5. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as shown in O.S.No.354/86 on the file of District Munsif, Gudur for the purpose of convenience.

6. The plaintiff averred in the plaint as hereunder:-

“The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Peruru Varadaiah and V. Narasimhulu Setty and Company. Its partners Peruru Lakshman Gupta and Raja Venkataseshaiah sold it to the plaintiff firm on 1-4-1967 under registered sale deed. It is stated that after some time, one of the partners of the plaintiff-firm Mummadisetti Obtaiah Setty died and his wife Ammanamma was made as partner in the partnership-firm. It is also stated that she also died on 27-10-1981. Subsequently, the present partnership was constituted and the plaintiff-firm is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It is further stated that while so, the defendant occupied 2 feet space of the site while constructing his southern compound wall about 15 years back and he is now digging trenches breaking open his southern compound wall to a length of 10 feet towards south of his compound wall. It is further stated that the defendant is bent upon violence and therefore this suit for permanent injunction.

7. The defendant pleaded in the written statement as hereunder:-

“The defendant did not know about the purchase of the plaint schedule property by plaintiff-firm. It is stated that the plaintiff’s partnership is not validly constituted and that the original partnership is deemed to have been dissolved with the death of M.Obaiah Setty and the subsequent partnership also dissolved with the death of Ammannamma. It is also stated that the plaintiff-firm did not file the partnership deed and therefore, it is not validly constituted. It is further stated that he was not aware about the source of title of the plaint schedule property. The vendors of the plaintiff-firm were neither in possession nor enjoyment of the schedule property, which was a vacant site. The defendant had 3 feet site to the south of his compound wall. On the south of the said site, Sanduveedi is situated and it was running from West to East. The Sanduveedi forms the southern boundary of all houses and it was judicially recognized as per the Judgment in O.S.No.139/86, that there was a road running from West to East on the West of defendant’s house up to the GNT Road. If the plaintiff’s predecessor had any site, it must be on the south of the said sanduveedi. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaint averments show that the defendant came into possession of the site about 15 years ago and he had perfected his title by adverse possession. With a view to secure safety from anti-social elements, the defendant pulled down his old compound wall and built the present wall enclosing his own site situated on the north of sanduveedi and