1. The substantial questions of law raised in these appeals are: i) Should not the courts below have held that the plaintiff was only a co-owner of the plaint schedule property and so he is not entitled to seek recovery of possession of the co- ownership property from the other co-owner?

ii) Even if the property was held to be of a partnership firm should not the courts below have held that without a decree for dissolution of the partnership, the recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule building from one partner to the other is unsustainable?

iii) Did not the courts below go wrong in assuming that the plaint schedule property is of a partnership firm without properly construing the partnership deed and the document of title?

2. Ext.A1 agreement was entered into on 2-09-1992. The recitals in Ext.A1 would show that the partnership had come into existence with effect from 28-8-1992 and that the duration of the partnership was for 15 years. The place of business of the firm as per Ext.A1 was shown to be the land having an extent of 6 cents in Sy.No.764/2D of Adoor Village. According to the plaintiff, he was the Managing partner of the partnership firm. It was also s