The main legal point established in the judgment is that the classification of a document as a conveyance, release, or deed of dissolution of partnership depends on the specific terms and intentions of the parties, as well as the nature of the transaction involved.

1. This is a reference under S.55 of the Kerala Stamp Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the Board of Revenue for a decision as to whether Ext. P1 dated 14 91972 is to be viewed as a conveyance (Article 21), as a release (Article 48 (b) ) or as a Deed of dissolution of partnership (Article 43-B). According to the Board of Revenue, Ext. P1 cannot be treated as a mere agreement under Art.5 (c) of the Schedule to the Act.

2. The first respondent, S. S. Sankaranarayana Reddiar and one Ananthanarayana Reddiar were conducting a partnership business named and styled as"Good morning Stores" and "Namaste Stores" at Palayam, M.G.Road, Trivandrum as per agreement dated 14 71955. Ananthanarayana Reddiar died on 6 71972 leaving behind his widow and children, who are respondents 2 to 5 herein, as his legal representatives. The partnership business terminated on the death of Ananthanarayana Reddiar. The respondents amicably arranged for the distribution of the surplus assets of the erstwhile partnership business. An agreement, Ext. P1 dated 14 91972 was entered into by them. The first respondent presented the document for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Trivandrum, who was of the opinion that the document must be stamped as "conveyance" and since it was not so stamped, he impounded it and forwarded it to the District Registrar, Trivandrum for adjudication. The latter, as per Ext. P2 order adjudicated Ext P1 as "conveyance for Rs. 82, 343.95 and required 1st respondent to pay additional stamp duty and penalty. The first respondent thereupon preferred an appeal petition, Ext. P3, before the Board of. Revenue, Trivandrum. The Board of Revenue was of the opinion that Ext. P1 cannot be regarded as a mere agreement, but wanted a decision by this court under S.55 of the Act as to whether it is to be treated as a "conveyance", "release" or "deed of dissolution of partnership".

3. The learned Advocate General contended that Ext. P1 operated as conveyance of the rights of the heirs of the deceased partner in the assets of the partnership and that this is particularly so since they are in the position of tenants-in-common with the surviving partner The learned counsel for the respondents contended that Ext. P1 does not convey any rights, that it is only a record of distribution of the surplus assets of the partnership on dissolution which had already taken place and as such it can be regarded only as an agreement; alternatively, learned counsel submitted that it may either be a deed of release or a deed of dissolution of partnership. The learned Advocate General rebutted this contention and further urged that if Ext. P1 is treated as a deed of release, since a release cannot convey title, it must be treated as conveyance.

4. It would be useful to have in view principles governing the rights of partners and legal representatives in the assets of a Firm. These principles can be gathered from the provisions of the Act (Ss. 4,11,14, 40 to 44, 46 and 48) and Lindley on Partnership 13th Edition (at pages 366, 384, 385, 578, 615, 616, 618 and 620). Partnership is a relation between persons, who have agreed to share profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Their mutual rights, duties and liabilities are determined by the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act subject to contract to the contrary between them. Property of the firm includes all property originally brought into the stock of the firm or acquired by or for the firm, or for the purpose of and in the course of the business of the firm and includes the goodwill of the business. The firm itself has no separate legal personality apart from that of the partners. The property of the firm vests in all the partners. During the subsistence of the partnership, no partner can deal with the property of the firm as his own or claim separate right in any particular item of property, though he has a right over the entire assets of the firm. He cannot a