Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.- The question which has been referred to this Court for decision is:

“Whether the document dated 12th May, 1953, is correctly classified as dissolution of partnership and conveyance, chargeable with stamp duty under Articles 39 (b) and 19 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, respectively.”

Two persons Rajakanni Nadar and Mathalai Nadar were carrying on business in partnership under the name of T.M.M. Mathalai Nadar and Company. The partnership was started under a deed, dated 16th of August, 1944. The document the stamp in regard to which is now in question, purports to be a deed of dissolution, dated 12th May, 1953. It recites the fact that these two partners, Mathalai Nadar and Rajakanni Nadar, were carrying on business in partnership that there had been a partition in the family of Rajakanni Nadar, that is between himself and his sons, on the 8th of April 1953 that they were entering into this dissolution, and that he was consequently dissolving the partnership between himself and Mathalai Nadar. It also recited that in the place of Rajakanni Nadar, Mathalai Nadar had agreed to admit to the partnership or to the benefits thereof the sons of Rajakanni Nadar. The usual clauses of dissolution namely that Rajakanni Nadar shall have no interest in the properties and goodwill, etc. of Mathalai Nadar and Company are to be found in the deed. The clause relevant to the present context is clause (3) which recites that Rajakanni Nadar shall have no interest whatsoever in any of the properties goodwill, stock and outstandings of the firm, subsequent to the 30th of Panguni, Nandana (12th April, 1953). Clause (4) provides for the ascertainment of the profits payable to Rajakanni Nadar for a period of eight months ending with 12th of April, 1953. Clause (5) concludes by saying

“Except the proportionate share of profit above mentioned and except the amount to which T. M. M. Rajalanni Nadar of as is entitled as per the recitals made in the family partition deed Rajakanni Nadar of in shall have no right whatever in the outstandings due to the aforesaid Mathalai Naiar and Company, the amounts payable by the same and stock, etc.........We have agreed unanimously as regard the aforesaid terms and for the purpose of carrying on as from 1st Chitrai of the current Vijaya year, we have a fixed our signature with our consent.”

This deed was stamped as a deed of dissolution pure and simple. When it was presented for registration the sufficiency of the stamp was questioned the case raised against the respondent being that the deed comprised not merely a deed of dissolution but it was also one of conveyance. The statement of Rajakanni Nadar in regard to the circumstance in which the document came into existence as well as the transactions which preceded it was recorded by the Sub-Registrar In the course of this evidence, Rajakanni Nadar stated that the total capital of the partnership was Rs. 76,000 out of which Rs. 44,000 had been contributed by Mathalai Nadar and Rs. 32,000 by himself, and that long before the dissolution on the 31st of Adi, corresponding to the middle of August, 1952 he had received this Rs 32,000 his capital contribution, and that, therefore, he entered into the deed of dissolution by which the partnership relation between himself and Mathalai Nadar was severed He also stated that this receipt of Rs. 32,000 had nothing to do with the deed of dissolution, dated 12th May, 1953.

The question we have now to consider is whether on these facts there is any conveyance involved in this transaction. If one went by the recitals in the document it included no conveyance, because the conveyance is now said to be constituted by the receipt of Rs. 32,000 by Rajakanni Nadar, which is stated to be as consideration for his relinquishing his interest in the partnership. Those are not the terms of the deed of dissolution which is before us. If the evidence or the statement of Rajakanni Nadar before the registering officer were the tes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document