SATISH CHANDRA, J.:- The Board of Revenue has referred the following two questions for decision by this Court:

"1. Whether the document is a dissolution of partnership-cum-three mortgages-cum-three releases as contended by the executants.

2. Whether the document amounts to a dissolution of partnership-cum-three mortgages-cum-three conveyances for Rs.48,000.00, Rs.45,000.00 and Rupees 13,000,00 respectively chargeable with the aggregate duties of three conveyances under Article 23 of Schedule 1-B the U.P. Stamp Amendment Act 1958 read with Section 6 thereof."

2. The document in question is dated 15th September 1960. It states that the four executants carried on business in partnership. The partnership has been dissolved with effect from 15th September 1960. The third party (Narendra Bahadur Singh) was given all the stocks, assets, and liabilities, including, all debts as per books of accounts of the firm. He was entitled to carry on the business under the old name and style. The other three partners were not entitled to or liable for the profits or loss of the business or for the liabilities that may be incurred by the third party (Narendra Bahadur Singh) hereinafter. In lieu of their capital, advances, profits and loss and interest, if any, accrued upto the 15th of September, 1960, the 1st party, the 2nd party and the 4th party had agreed to receive and 3rd party had agreed to pay, the amount mentioned hereunder respectively against their names, in full satisfaction of their respective shares, interest, profits and claim whatsoever in the said firm. The 1st party (Purshottam Das Lallu Bhai) was to receive Rs.48,000,00, the 2nd party (Smt. Deliben) Rs.45,000.00 and the 4th party (Smt. Kikiben) Rupees 13,000.00 from the third party. In order to secure payment of these sums, the third party had hypothecated and charged certain properties.

3. It has not been disputed before us that the clause hypothecating and charging the properties to secure payment of the amounts to the other three parties, constitutes the document a deed of three mortgages chargeable to duty as such.

4. The Board of Revenue was of the opinion that the document is not only an instrument of dissolution of partnership but also of conveyance. The Board felt that the 1st, 2nd and the 4th party transferred their shares in the firm to the 3rd party, against cash payment, equivalent to the value of their share. The transaction was, therefore, conveyance within meaning of Section 2(1) of the U.P. Stamp Act. The Board holds that the document in question is an instrument of dissolution of partnership. In this context, its view that the three partners had transferred their shares in the firm to the fourth, could not mean that this transfer had taken place in a subsisting partnership.

5. It is noticeable that the Board does not hold that the three partners transferred their share or interest in the properties of the firm to Narendra Bahadur Singh. It is hence unnecessary to discuss in detail if partners are co-owners. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court has settled the law that, during the subsistence of a partnership, the firm properties vest in all the partners collectively, but no partner can deal with specific properties as if they were his own, nor does he possess any assignable interest in any such property (See Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300, para 3) So, it is obvious that there can be no transfer or sale of the three partners' interest in the properties of the firm to the 4th partner.

6. The position of partners on dissolution of a firm may be examined. Under Section 46, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, on the dissolution of the firm, every partner is entitled, as against all the other partners, to have the property of the firm applied in payment of the debts and liabilities of the firm, and to have the surplus distributed amongst the partners according to their rights.

7. Section 48, Indian Partnership Act, provides the mode of settlement