A deed of dissolution containing ancillary provisions exists primarily as a dissolution document, warranting only the applicable duty for dissolution under the Stamp Act.

1. This is a revision application against an order dated 2nd December, 1969, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. By this order he has decided a preliminary issue, being issue No. 8 in the suit, as to whether the document which the parties described as a deed of dissolution of partnership, or, in so far as it pertained to payment of certain amounts of money by the continuing partner to the outgoing partners, it was also a bond within the meaning of S.2(c)(ii) and Art.13 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 .

2. The two plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership under a deed of partnership dated 11th June, 1960 and carried on partnership business in Nagpur and Bhopal in the name and style "Messrs. Oriental Engineering Company". They decided to dissolve this partnership with effect from 1st April, 1966, settle the accounts of the partnership, and provide for the defendant continuing the partnership business, payment of amounts found due to the outgoing partners and several other matters. On 5th July, 1966 they reduced what they called "the terms of dissolution" to writing. The interpretation of this writing which has been described by the parties as a deed of dissolution is the subject - matter of this revision application.

3. It appears that the plaintiffs to whom certain amounts were payable under this document filed a suit for recovery thereof in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. After the issues were framed - and one of them being as to the proper stamp payable on this document, the learned trial Judge decided that it was not only a deed of dissolution but also a bond and should be stamped as such. He impounded the document under S. 33 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 , and asked the plaintiffs to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty under S.34 of this said Act before the said document was admitted in evidence. It is against the said order that the present revision application has been filed.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, a reference to the terms of the document itself will be necessary. The parties to it are the two plaintiffs who are the outgoing partners and the defendant who is the continuing partner. The document provides that the partnership subsisting between the parties was dissolved by mutual consent with effect from 1st April, 1966, and the plaintiffs had retired from it and the said business with its goodwill, trade name, benefit of all the contracts, engagements, agencies, quota rights, tenancy rights etc., and the assets and liabilities, books of accounts and outstandings would belong to the defendant and thence - forward the said business would be his sole proprietary business. This term in effect amounted to a transfer of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the said business to the defendant. The document recites that accounts of the partnership had been settled and a sum of Rs. 30,104.58 P. had been determined to be payable to the plaintiff No. 2. In addition, she was also given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as what is described as a "solatium". It appears some friends and relations of the plaintiff No. 1 had advanced sums aggregating Rs. 33,986.60 P. to the partnership. The document provides that at the written request of those creditors who had advanced these amounts, the said amount had to be paid to the plaintiff No. 1. In addition, the plaintiff No. 1, was also given a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as a "solatium". We may assume that the word "solatium" stands for the price of the goodwill which was included in the transfer to the defendant. It has been contended that in so far as this document provide