The judgment established the importance of registration of documents declaring rights in immovable property under the Registration Act.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The appellants father, one Nattekalappa, the first respondents brother Yarikalappa, and the second respondent carried on business in partnership from 1892 until 3rd May, 1904, when a dissolution took place, During the existence of the partnership certain immovable properties were purchased out of the profits of the business. One lot comprising four items was purchased in the name of the appellants father and another lot comprising three items was purchased in the names of the appellants father and the first respondents brother. On the dissolution it was agreed that the immovable properties should not be divided among the partners, but should be held by them as joint tenants with equal rights. The terms of the dissolution were set out in full in the firms daybook and the statement (Ex. A) was signed by all the partners. The appellants father died in 1921 and the first respondents brother in 1918. The immovable properties eventually came into the possession of the appellant. In 1928 the first respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Gooty for partition of the properties and delivery to him of the one-third share which he claimed therein. The appellant resisted the claim. He contended that the properties did not belong to the partnership, but to his father; that the suit was barred by the provisions of Article 106 of the Limitation Act not having been brought within three years of the dissolution of the partnership, and that Ex. A could not be admitted in evidence by reason of non-registration, which precluded any claim being made under it. The District Munsif rejected the appellants contentions and decreed the suit. On appeal the District Judge of Anantapur held that the properties in suit were not partnership properties, but properties which belonged exclusively to the appellants father. He also held that the suit was barred by limitation and that Ex. A required registration. The appeal was therefore allowed and the suit dismissed. The first respondent then filed a second appeal which was heard by Varadachariar, J. The learned Judge restored the decree of the District Munsif. He held that the District Judge had entirely failed to appreciate the evidence which showed conclusively that the properties belonged to the partnership, that the suit did not fall within Article 1,06 of the Limitation Act and that the law did not require Ex. A to be registered. The learned Judge having granted a certificate under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. It is not necessary to decide whether Varadachariar, J., was justified in reversing the decision of the District Judge on the question of the ownership of the properties because we consider that the appellant is Entitled to succeed on his contention that Ex. A required to be registered.

3. Ex. A, after describing the immovable properties purchased by the firm out of the partnership assets proceeds:

Panyam Yerakalanna, Alasyam Nettakalappa and Voruganti Basappa, these three individuals, have rights for equal shares in the amount of Rs. 1,106-3-1 mentioned in the balance sheet from Nos. 1 to 9, and to the lands mentioned in pages 232-233.

4. Particulars of the amount of debts to the extent of Rs. 2,597-8-9 mentioned in pages 10 to 13 which have to be paid by us three, mentioned in numbers 14 to 16 - particulars thereof:

Rs. A. P. No. 14 Panyam Yerakalanna .. 700 11 9 with interest thereon. No. 15 Voruganti Nagappa .. 649 10 5 No. 16 Alasyam Nettakalappa .. 1,247 2 7

We the three aforesaid individuals have agreed thereto and settled the accounts.

There is here a declaration, made on the dissolution of the partnership, that the three persons who had constituted the partnership had equal rights in the properties which had been purchased out of the profits. The fact that the agreement embodying the terms of the dissolution was entered in the daybook and not drawn up separately makes no difference. The