raised and then proved. In this case the question of limitation is intricately linked with the question whether the agreement to sell was entered into on behalf of all and whether possession was on behalf of all. It is also linked with the plea of adverse possession. Once on facts it has been found that the purchase was on behalf of all and that the possession was on behalf of all, then, in the absence of any open, hostile and overt act, there can be no adverse possession and the suit would also not be barred by limitation. The only hostile act which could be shown was the advertisement issued in 1989. The suit filed almost immediately thereafter.” (emphasis supplied) 19. A fervent plea was raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the firm continued to exist even after the death of Shri M. Balraj Reddy, and the business activities were continued by the firm. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the partners were carrying on the business activities after the