The ownership of business premises in a partnership dispute is determined by the partnership deed and the assets of the partnership firm at the time of its execution.

1. We have heard Mr. S.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant in extenso and perused the record.

2. This appeal in Letters Patent is directed against the judgement and decree dated 31.5.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil First Appeal No. 67/1995. By the aforesaid judgement, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Civil First Appeal and upheld the judgement and preliminary decree passed by Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 37/1980. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal in resuming may be noticed.

3. Parties in litigation happened to be the real brothers and entered into partnership to start a business of Ice Cream Factory in the shop located at Bikram Chowk, Jammu and partnership deed dated 21.3.1973 to this effect was registered on 28.3.1973. by making an investment in equal shares. The parties had equal share in the business in Ice Cream Factory, which started on 1.3.1973 in terms of the partnership deed. Plaintiff/Appellant, in claiming that the business premises were constructed out of the joint funds raised by the parties, commenced a suit for dissolution of partnership and also sought partition of the property consisting of shops and chowbara by meets and bounds. On the filing of the disclaimer by the defendent/respondent, in refuting the claim of the plaintiff/appellant with regard to the partition of the suit premises, asserted that he is the exclusive owner in occupation of the suit property since the year 1950. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the Trial court settled the issues and after an analytical evaluation of the primary and perceptive facts deposed to by the witnesses examined at the trial by the parties and testimonial boost provide either way, the trial court, while holding that the parties are partners in the business of the Ice Cream styled as Rita Ice Cream Factory and entitled to half of the share in the movable property of the partnership firm, held that the business premises particularised in the suit as factory building and shops were not the property of the partnership firm. aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court, plaintiff/appellant impugned its correctness in Civil First Appeal No. 67/1995. The plea of the plaintiff/appellant with regard to the partition of the shops and factory premises, however, did not merit acceptance with the learned Single Judge and the appeal was held to be devoid of merit and dismissed vide Judgement dated 31.5.1999.

4. The whole controversy between the parties in this appeal centres around a narrow compass. The claim of the plaintif/appellant is that, he is a partner with defendant/respondent not only in the business of Rita Ice Cream Factory, but also partner in the building where Ice Cream Factory is run and shops appurtenant thereto in equal share. His further contention is that, the suit premises were constructed out of the joint funds, whereas the specific stand taken by the defendent/respondent in controverting the contention of the plaintiff/appellant is that, the building of the factory and shops attached thereto exclusive belong to him and is not a property of the partnership concern.

5. The admitted facts of the case are that the premises, where Rita Ice Cream Factory is run, were originally with one Durga Devi, who filed eviction suit and obtained decree against Dwarka Nath and Bansi Lal. When the said Durga Devi put this a decree in execution, Ram Prakash Kohli, defendent/respondent, commenced a suit for declaration claiming to be the owner of the said premises by adverse possession. The suit was decreed and upheld by the First Appellate Court. A second Appeal taken to impugned the correctness of the decree also, as is admitted by the parties, stood dismissed. The defendent/respondent was, therefore, declared as owner of the adverse, possession and the decree assumed finality on the dismissal of the second appeal in the High Court. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff/appellant