APTE J.-This appeal by original defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 is directed against the final decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 1958 on January 31, 1977 determining the future mesne profits from the date of suit till 1967 to be paid by the defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 to the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 who are other sharers.

2. Plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, who respectively are respondents 1, 2 and 3 in this appeal, are real brothers while appellant No. 1, who is original defendant No. 1, is their step brother. Appellants 2 to 5, who were defendants 5 to 8 in the trial Court, are the sons of defendant No. I. Defendant No.4, since deceased, was the natural mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and step-mother of defendant No.1.

3. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 along with the sons of defendant No.1 formed a joint Hindu family.

4. The family owned agricultural lands at four villages of Pimpre, Shivtakrar (Nira), Korhale and Wathar of Nimbalkar. Besides, the family owned some house structures at Nira. One more house structure was constructed by defendant No.1 on one of the plots at Nira, which belonged to the family, sometime in 1964 to 1966. According to defendant No.1, he spent bout Rs 13,000 for construction of this building, which is referred to in the record as Building No.2.

5. In addition, the family conducted since 1939 an Adat shop, that is, shop of commission agency in agricultural products, at Nira. Similarly, business in country blankets was also carried on by plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 as a joint family concern in Konkan Region of this State since 1928. This business is referred to in record as 'Konkan business'.

6. It ill not in dispute, at least at this stage, that defendant No.1 and his sons were in exclusive charge of the commission agency shop at Nira while plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were looking after the blanket business in Konkan. Similarly, defendant No.1 and his sons-defendants 5 to 8 were also looking after the management of other immovable properties both agricultural lands and houses.

7. It appears that present defendant No.2, Raghunath Ramji, had filed Special Civil Suit No. 193 of 1950 against his brothers for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family property. In that suit the present defendant No.1 was impleaded as defendant No.1 while present plaintiff was defendant No.2 and present defendant No.3 was defendant No.3. It seems that after the hearing of that suit commenced, the parties came to some understanding and, therefore, that suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff in that suit on September 5, 1955 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in that suit also passed a purshis that they did not wish to proceed further as defendant No.1 had agreed to privately partition the property and give possession of their share therein.

8. It, however, so happened that this understanding never materialised with the result that the suit in which this appeal arises was instituted by present respondent No.1 Dhondiram Ramji again claiming partition and possession of his share in the aforesaid joint family property.

9. Defendants 2 and 3 also supported the plaintiff and claimed similar partition and possession of their share in the joint family property.

10. Defendant No.4, the genetive mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and the step mother of defendant No. 1, who was impleaded as defend ant No.4 in this suit claimed partition and possession of her 1/5th share.

11. It is unnecessary to set out at great length the defences raised by present appellants. Suffice it to state that defendant No.1 and his sons claimed that the commission agency shop at Nira and the other property consisting of agricultural lands and houses was their exclusive property, while plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, who were in charge of the blanket business in Konkan, claimed that that business was exclusively owned by them.

12. The trial Cou