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 stated that though the share of the plaintiff and defendant was 50% equal, subsequently the partnership was amended on 13-4-1993 as per which the plaintiff's share over the partnership was enhanced to 80% and the defendant was having the balance 20 %. It was also stated that the defendant had availed a loan of Rs. 87,700/-from the Kerala Financial Corporation ("K.F.C."for short ) and that amount, including in the interest, totaling to Rs. 102949/- was prayed by the plaintiff and thus the loan was closed. It was also contended that for the construction of the building in the plaint schedule property plaintiff had spent Rs. 1,10,000/-from his own profit. It was stated that the plaintiff had paid Rs. 25,000/-as advance amount to Print Pack Engineers, New Delhi for purchasing machinery and also another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fees to the K.F.C. It was stated that the plaintiff had spent some more amounts towards the partnership business.

3. Though the defendant contended that the sale deed was a sham document and that it was not acted upon, that contention was negatived by the courts below for want of the required pleading and evidence. I find no reason to differ from the view so taken by the courts below.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the evidence would clearly show that the partnership business as such did not commence at all. In other words, except the fact that the partnership deed was entered into, there is nothing in evidence to show that the business as such was conducted in the plaint schedule building. The evidence would also show that now the appellant's wife and children are residing in the plaint schedule building. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the courts below grossly erred in holding that the plaint schedule building is the asset of the firm. The relevant recital in Ext.A1 partnership deed has been referred to for that purpose. This would show that the partnership agreement was to the effect that the partnership business was intended to be conducted in the six cents of dry land in Sy. No. 764/2D of Adoor Village belonging to the partners jointly. as per deed No. 582/1991. Clause (2) of the partnership deed further recites "the place of business of the firm will be the land having an extent of 6 cents in Sy. No. 764/20 of Adoor Village, already mentioned". Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the intention of the partners was only to use the land covered by Ext.A3 as the place where the Offset Printing Press was intended to be started on partnership basis. The third clause also would reinforce the said view, the learned counsel submits, for, otherwise, it could have been stated specifically that the said land measuring 6 cents and building to be co