The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P7 order, which is passed in conclusion of a proceeding for impounding, initiated on Exhibit P2 deed being presented for registration. The question raised is, as to what is the stamp duty leviable on Exhibit P2 deed; whether it be under Article 43(b) as a "dissolution of partnership deed" or under Article 48(b) as a "release deed", as per the Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1959 (Kerala) [for brevity "Stamp Act"].

2. The petitioner entered into a partnership on 06.05.2005, as is evidenced by Exhibit P1. The partnership was formed with four other individuals and the same was to carry on a business in the name and style "TULSI BUILDERS". The capital brought in by each of the five partners as also the share of profit and loss of the business is evident at Exhibit P1. Exhibit P1 deed was not registered. Subsequently, a dissolution is said to have been effected by Exhibit P2. The petitioner paid Rs.70.50 lakhs to the other partners and obtained exclusive right to carry on the business and also the rights over the assets and liabilities of the business. The deed evidencing such transaction, evidenced at Exhibit P2, was styled as one effecting dissolution of the partnership and presented for registration, stamped with Rs.250/- and paying registration fee of Rs.1,41,000/-.

3. The Sub Registrar impounded the document and forwarded it to the District Collector, who is the District Registrar, for further action under Section 37(2) of the Stamp Act. The District Registrar passed Exhibit P4 order, which was challenged inter alia on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. This Court found that Exhibit P4 was a consequential order passed on a reference under Section 54(2) of the Act, being answered against the petitioner. The 1st respondent herein, who was the 3rd respondent there, answered the reference under Section 54(2). On the ground of no notice having been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity for hearing afforded to him, this Court by Exhibit P6 judgment set aside the order and directed re-consideration. The Land Revenue Commissioner was directed to issue notice to the petitioner and answer the reference made under Section 54(2) of the Stamp Act. That order on re-consideration, evidenced at Exhibit P7, is impugned herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the dissolution of partnership made as per Exhibit P2 would not attract the stamp duty under Article 48(b) and would attract stamp duty only under Article 43B. The learned counsel would also rely on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Secretary, Board of Revenue v. Sankaranarayana Reddiar and Others [1981 KLT 586 (F.B.)] and a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Others [AIR 2012 All. 113]. As already stated, the short question to be considered is as to whether the deed at Exhibit P2 ought to be treated as a "dissolution" or a "release".

5. The law with respect to partnership has been clearly laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein a reference under Section 55 of the Stamp Act, by the Board of Revenue, was answered. An agreement; amicably distributing the surplus assets of a partnership firm, in which one of the two existing partners died; between the surviving partner and the legal heirs of the deceased, was the document which came up for consideration in the above case. The Board of Revenue sought reference on the question whether the same should be treated as a "conveyance" under Article 21, a "release" under Article 48(b) or a "deed of dissolution of partnership" under Article 43(b). The deed was treated by the executants as a mere "agreement" under the Stamp Act. Clearly, there was a distribution of assets of the partnership as per the document. The Full Bench, after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also other High Courts, held that