JUDGMENT

R.M. SAHAI, J.

(1) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether the recital in a deed of dissolution of partnership, Ext. 48, that Survey Plot No. 699 was a partnership property was admissible in evidence.

(2) BOTH the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent were partners in M/s Maharashtra Metal Manufacturing Company. The partnership was formed in 1952 and it lasted till 1959. In 1955 the plot in dispute was purchased by the defendant. At the time of dissolution a partition deed, Ext. 46, was executed. A Deed of Dissolution, Ext. 47, was executed on 1/8/1961 and another deed, Ext. 48, was executed on 1/9/1961. In all these deeds, this plot was mentioned. In the last deed the recital read as under:

"WE both have been carrying on the business of making and selling lotas (a) of copper in partnership for a long time in the name of M/s Maharashtra Metal Manufacturing Company Pune. We have duly recorded the deed of dissolution of partnership on the date 1/9/1961. There were factories running at two places and belonging to our partnership. Similarly there is a plot bearing Survey No. 699 of the ownership of our partnership, situated near Saibaba Temple, Satara-Poona Road, Swargate and we both reside there. The places of both the factories are taken on rent and the same were also (included) in our partnership."

In the schedule appended to the partition deed it was mentioned that the said property together with the structure standing thereon, the well and the motor fixed on the said well would be treated as joint or common property. Since in the Deed of Dissolution of 1-8-1961 it was mentioned,

"SURVEY No. 699 has been purchased in the name of No. 1 Mungale, No. 1 Mungale should execute a sale deed of half share in this land in favour of No. 2 Bidwai at Bidwais expense."

the appellant issued notice for execution of the sale deed. But when the defendant neglected to do so the appellant filed the suit for partition by metes and bounds. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The two deeds of dissolution of partnership were held inadmissible for want of registration. The order was upheld in appeal. It was held that the recital in Exts. 46 and 47 with regard to terms of dissolution of partnership did not require registration. But so far as it sought to affect the interest of defendant in the non-partnership immovable property the document being unregistered was inadmissible. In respect of Ext. 48 the High court held that the recital in the document that it was partnership property did not appear to be correct.

(3) SHRI Ashoke Sen, learned Senior Counsel urged that the law is settled that no registration was required of the partnership property as it did not result in transfer of any interest. Reliance was placed on S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S. V. Sivalinga Nadar. The learned counsel urged that in any case Section 14 of the Partition Act indicated that any property acquired subsequently becomes partnership property. Shri Tarkunde, learned Senior Counsel supported the findings recorded by the High court. He submitted that the documents i.e. Exts. 46, 47 and 48 did not establish that Plot No. 699 was partnership property. He urged that in Ext. 46 the mala (garden land) and the present suit property had been separately mentioned. Therefore, it was clear that it was not partnership property. Learned counsel urged that the High court having found documentary evidence to be insufficient or inadmissible examined the oral evidence and held that the land was not partnership property as such it was not an appropriate case in which this court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The learned counsel argued that the respondent having proved that the land was purchased by him, it was for the appellant to prove that the property belonged to both.

(4) THE real question that arises for consideration is if the recital in the Deed of Dissolution da