This batch of appeals arises out of a remand by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge of Kurnool of two suits filed by the plaintiff, one Venkatanarasa Reddi for dissolution of two partnerships entered into by his deceased younger brother, Hanumantha Reddi who died in February 1947. Hanumantha Reddi who is said to have been educated entered into partnerships with third parties to trade in timber and bamboos. Alleging that he and his younger brother constituted a joint family at. the time of the latter’s death, Venkatanarasa Reddi filed these two suits, O.S.Nos.130 of 1947 and 131 of 1947 in which he impleaded the partners of the business and Hanumantha Reddi’s widow, Narasamma as defendants. The District Munsif dismissed the two suits holding that Venkatanarasa Reddi and Hanumantha Reddi were divided in status from 1938 and that the suits were not maintainable. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that Venkatanarasa Reddi and Hanumantha Reddi continued to be joint and that therefore Venkatanarasa Reddi was entitled to sue for dissolution of partnerships and for accounts if it was found under issue No.3 that Hanumantha Reddi had invested family funds in both the suit partnerships. He also found that the widow, Narasamma, was entitled to his half share in all the family property including the suit partnership and that Venkatanarasa Reddi was entitled to the other half. It was disclosed in the course of a long argument that Venkatanarasa Reddi had filed a partition suit O.S.No.45 of 1948 against Narasamma which, when these appeals were admitted, was stayed. It is regretable that all the suits were not given a simultaneous disposal.

Two of these appeals, C.M.A.Nos.604 and 605 of 1949 have been filed by the widow, Narasamma and the other two appeals, C.M.A.Nos.96 and 97 of 1950 by the partners in the two businesses. The main issue argued before me elaborately by Mr.T.M. Krishnaswami Ayyar for the appellants and Mr. Tyagarajan for the plaintiff-respondent, Venkatanarasa Reddi, is whether these two brothers were divided in status or constituted aft undivided coparcenary up to the time of Hanumantha Reddi’s death. They had a third brother one Swami Reddi who admittedly separated from them many years ago and went to the house of his wife’s mother from whom he got substantial property. He has been examined as D.W.1 and he supports the plaintiff’s case that he and Hanumantha Reddi continued undivided all through. The main document in the case is Exhibit D-1 dated 29th August, 1938, which is really a reference to arbitration signed by all the three brothers to five named mediators. This was admittedly some years after Swami Reddi went out of the family. It contains the following recitals:

“Previously we became divided but due to some mistake the Pharikat (partition deed) was not executed all this while. As individual 2 (Swami Reddi) is now having misgivings and as there is no partition deed the three have together agreed to abide by the mediation of the above-mentioned respectable persons..... If any of us three were to fail to so abide by the decision of the above mediators and reject the same that very person shall bear the entire expenses for the partition deeds.”

It is common ground that the arbitrators as such did not function at all and that Hanumantha Reddi continued to live with his brother in the family house where he died. There was evidence to show that Hanumantha Reddi’s wife Narasamma had been cooking separately in the family house for a number of years. Narasamma is said to be colluding with Nemalayya who is one of the partners of the two businesses. Since Hanumantha Reddi’s death, Venkatanarasa Reddi has been admittedly in enjoyment of the. family land. It is also stated that since. Hanumantha Reddi’s death the two timber businesses have been continued as before but with Narasamma taking the place of her deceased husband Hanumantha Reddi.

According to Karnam Subbarayudu, P.W.4, the writer of Exhibit D-1, it was neces