A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. The State of Kerala and the Officials of its Revenue Department, who were the respondents in the writ petitions, are the appellants before us in these writ appeals. They are aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28.03.2018 of the learned Single Judge that finds that the writ petitioners, who were partners in a Firm, were entitled to a transfer of registry of the properties accruing to them consequent to the dissolution of the Firm, without there being a registered document, transferring the interest of the partner, who had the ownership of the property, prior to it being brought into the stock of the Firm.

2. The writ petitioners were partners of a registered Firm named “Universal Builders and Developers” that was constituted on 18.12.2010 but registered only in 2015. The partners brought their individual properties into the common stock of the Firm and, after carrying on business for a little over five years, the Firm was dissolved by a Deed of dissolution dated 01.03.2016. By the said deed, the properties of the Firm have been distributed among the partners, and in the process, the properties brought in by the partners at the time of formation of the partnership, have been exchanged amongst them. When the partners approached the revenue authorities, seeking a transfer of the registry, of the property obtained by them consequent to dissolution of the Firm, in their names, the same was refused stating that there was no registered document executed in their favour evidencing a transfer of title in the respective item of property, to them.

3. The learned Single Judge relied on the decisions reported in M/s. Malabar Fisheries Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala - [AIR 1980 SC 176] and N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) By LRS. And Another v. N. Gudu Sahib (Dead) And Others–[(2003) 3SCC 229], to find that a partnership firm is only a compendious personality of the partners, that is not distinct from the persons who constitute it, and in terms of Section 14 of the Partnership Act, the property of the Firm will have to be understood as the property belonging to the partners for the exclusive purpose of business. It was thereafter held that, inasmuch as this Court had in George V.J. and Others v. V.V. Georgeand Others-[2010 (2) KHC 674] and S.V. Chandra Pandian and Others v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar and Others - [1993 KHC 1150] held that when partners convert individual property into the property of the Firm, no registration is required in terms of the Registration Act, it followed, as a corollary, that such registration was not required when the partnership is dissolved and the properties distributed among the partners.

4. The appellant State would contend that, the registered original partnership deed dated 18.12.2010 was one in which one Joseph @ Ouseph was a partner. He died on 20.02.2011. Thereafter, on 01.05.2015, the wife of the deceased partner–Smt. Sabina–was inducted as a partner, and a fresh partnership deed was executed on identical terms. This newly constituted Firm was registered on 22.12.2015, and was dissolved through the deed dated 01.03.2016. Thus, the Firm that was dissolved existed only for 70 days. It is contended, based on Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the term “living-person” included a body of individuals, and in that sense, a partnership is also recognized as a “living-person” for the purposes of the Transfer of Property Act. Referring to Section 17 of the Registration Act, it is contended that a non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, has to be compulsorily registered. It is pointed out, therefore, that the transfer of property under the Transfer of Property Act can only be effected through a registered deed which conveys t