S.K. Gupta, J. 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. 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 being aware of the fact that the defendent/respondent has claimed exclusive ownership of the suit premises in the suit filed against Durga Devi, but he had neither chosen to become party in that suit nor assailed the exclusive ownership claimed by the defendent/espondent and, therefore, cannot claim joint ownership in the said property by operation of estopple by conduct after the decree in the second Appeal in favour of the defendent/respondent became final. It is also not disputed by the plaintiff/appellant that Soda Factory was being run by the defendent/respondent in the suit premises, which according to the defendent/respondent, was his sole concern since 1947 and continued till 1965 when started business of Ice Candy. The partnership deed, however, came to be executed between the parties in the year 1973. The electric and water connections of the factory also stood in the name of defendant/respondent alone. 6. This makes it abundantly clear that the shop and the chowbara were owned by the defendent/respondent prior to the constitution of the partnership firm. On a plain reading of clause (ii) of the partnership deed, it becomes clear that only shares are determined, which the partners were to hold on the basis of investment in the business. The premises on which the Ice Cream Factory was run in partnership were already existing and there were no assets of the partnership firm. The plaintiff/appellant, therefore, cannot claim share in the demised premises, which admittedly were not the assets of the partnership firm at the time of the execution of the partnership deed. It, therefore, follows that the plaintiff/appellant never claimed ownership of the premises as the document is to be read as it is and not in the manner suggested by learned appellants advocate, Mr. S.D. Sharma. The partnership deed has a reference to the business and not to the business premises. Apart from that, the plaintiff/appellant admitted in his evidence to have built one shop out of his own resources and other by the defendent/respondent, which further negative the claim of the plaintiff/appellant of joint ownership of the factory and the shop. The plea taken by Mr. S.D.Sharma, advocate appearing for the plaintiff/appellant, therefore, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the view that plaintiff/appellant cannot claim any right/share in the property comprising of shops and chowbara by partition, which admittedly not the assets of the partnership firm. The judgement and decree impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in our view, does not suffer from any infirmity that warrants interference. 8. In the result, the appeal possessing no merit is hereby dismissed. Cost throughout shall abide the result.