K. C. AGRAWAL, J. :- This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. The questions referred are :

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances stated above, the document Annexure-A is a conveyance of property, as defined in Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act ?

2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative then, whether stamp duty will be payable on the amount of Rs. 2,14,420/- or the market value whichever is higher in terms of provisions of Art.23 Sch.I-B of the Stamp Act, as amended in U.P. ?

2. The relevant facts, which led to the making of the present reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to the High Court are these. m/s. Auto Sales was a partnership firm. It purchased certain lands in village Rangpura in 1964 under two separate sale deeds in the names of Chandra Mohan and Man Mohan. These were described as Benami transactions. The two ostensible owners relinquished their rights, title and interest in favour of M/s. Auto Sales. After relinquishment, M/s. Auto Sales made constructions. Gunjan Gupta, who was also a partner of M/s. Auto Sales withdrew from the partnership in Nov., 1969. Thereupon, the firm was reconstituted. At the time of withdrawal of Gunjan Gupta, accounts were taken and his share was determined. Gunjan Gupta was given the properties in lieu of his share, to which he was found entitled. In pursuance of this agreement, a deed purporting to be "Deed of Release" dated 25-4-1971 was executed. It is stated in this document that Gunjan Gupta would be the sole and full owner of the properties described at its foot. This included agricultural plots as well as constructions made thereon.

3. Having felt doubtful that the aforesaid document could be a release deed, the Collector Allahabad, drew up a statement of the case and referred it for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, which is the Board of Revenue in the instant case. According to the view of the Collector, the document was a conveyance hence the duty paid thereon was not sufficient. Thereupon, the Board submitted the two questions, mentioned above, for decision of the High Court.

4. Before we proceed to consider the points urged, it would be relevant to note some of the clauses of the deed on which the interpretation of the document depends. These are :

1. That the first party do hereby release and relinquish in favour of the second party all their right, title and interest in ALL THAT premises, including the land, building fixtures and fittings etc., described in the schedule herein below, TO HAVE AND HOLD the same absolutely as Bhumidhar of the land and owners of all the buildings and fixtures and fittings standing thereon, and the FIRST PARTY do hereby declare that the said premises are and have been with effect from Nov. 28, 1968 the exclusive property of the SECOND PARTY who is since that date absolutely entitled thereto;

3. That the valuation of the property released was Rs. 2,14,420/- as per books of the FIRST PARTY firm which amount has been received from the SECOND PARTY by book adjustment in the accounts of the FIRST PARTY Firm.

5. The firms argument was that since Gunjan Gupta was a co-owner in the properties of the partnership firm, therefore, the release of the properties made by the firm in his favour could not amount to a sale and hence the document was not a conveyance. The case of the Revenue, however, was that as the properties were transferred to Gunjan Gupta in lieu of Rs. 2,14,420/-, which was payable to him by the firm, the document was a conveyance of the properties by sale.

6. At this place, it would be appropriate to notice the law on the nature of the rights of a partner qua partnership property. A partner of a firm is in the same position as a co-owner of the joint property in relation to other co-owners. The concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in a capital money or even property, including immovable property. Once a partner