1. The challenge is against Ext.P12 order passed by the District Collector rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under the Transfer of Registry Rules.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, which is known as M/s. Park Residency. The partnership firm was initially named as M/s. Maria Residency which has been conducting hotel business. Four items of land, viz. 4.5 ares and 0.52 ares in Sy. No.339/6, 1.71 ares in Sy. No.339/7 and 0.58 ares in Sy. No.335/1 were purchased in the name of the partnership as per sale deed No.2155/03, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P9. After the purchase, mutation was effected and Thandaper No.6185 of Ernakulam Village was allotted.

3. Two new partners were inducted and the partnership was reconstituted. After reconstitution, the firm is known as M/s. Park Residency. Ext.P6 is the copy of the Deed of Reconstitution of partnership and Ext.P7 is the copy of the certificate containing registration in the name of the new partnership with effect from 17.4.2010. Ext.P8 is the copy of the deed of amendment to the partnership.

4. The Tahsildar was approached by filing an application for mutation in favour of M/s. Park Residency, which was rejected by Ext.P1 order. The same was challenged before the District Collector by filing a revision petition and the final order is produced as Ext.P12. The authorities have taken the view that the application for mutation cannot be allowed as there is no document of conveyance of property and what is involved is the reconstitution of the partnership by inducting two partners and change of Firm's name and the same do not come within the purview of Transfer of Registry Rules. For effecting transfer of registry, voluntary transfer is required.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the existing partnership was reconstituted by inducting two partners which alone is the change and a new name was also adopted. The assets and liabilities of the old firm will now be statutorily vested with the new firm and therefore the properties including the immovable properties are automatically transferred in the name of the new firm. It is therefore submitted that when there is a deed of reconstitution of the partnership and the legal formalities required have been fulfilled and the registration number has been allotted in the new name, mutation has to be effected. It is submitted that unless the transfer of registry is made, the properties will remain in the old firm name which is no longer there. Reliance is placed on Rule 17 of the Transfer of Registry Rules to show that any transfer of registry case, can be disposed of by the Tahsildar.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addanki Narayanappa and others v. Bhaskara Krishtappa and others (1959 A.P. 380) and later decisions of the Apex Court in S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar {(1993) 1 SCC 589}, N. Khadervali Saheb (dead) by Lrs. v. N. Gudu Sahib (dead) and others {(2003) 3 SCC 229) and that of this Court in Noble Kuries v. Sebastian (2009 (4) KLT 806) and George v. George (2010) 2 KLT 682) to drive home the principles relevant in the matter. It is submitted that when a firm is dissolved, a document recording the same and relinquishing interest of partners will not require a registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. It is submitted that in the light of the declaration of law made by the Apex Court and this Court, what is of importance is only the intention of the parties and even in the case of reconstitution of a partnership firm by way of deed, the reconstituted firm can maintain an application for transfer of registry.

8. In the first of the decisions, viz. Addanki Narayanappa's case (1959 AP 380) it was held that the interest of a partner in partn