ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the first respondent in Letter No.566/P1/2009, dated 05.01.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to register the pending Document No.69 of 2008 dated 06.10.2008 pending on the file of the II respondent and register the same on receipt of 10% percent value of the property for stamp duty and registration charges apart from the amount already paid towards stamp duty and registration charges as mentioned in the document and return the above document to the petitioner i.e., stamp duty and registration charges etc., on the property.

2. The petitioners have partnership form in the name and style of Supreme Art Works dealing in ready-made garments. Initially there were two partners viz., U.Udhay H. Rajai & U.Manoj H. Rajai and they were having 60% and 40% share respectively in the partnership firm as per deed of the partnership dated 19.01.1992. The said partnership firm was re-constituted on 10.02.2006 and new two partners viz., the petitioners herein were inducted in the partnership firm. As per the re-constitution deed the shares of the partners have been changed in the following manner :-

a. U.Udhay H. Rajai - 5% share b. U.Manoj H. Rajai - 5% share c. J. Harish Bakshani - 30% share d. J.Thakur Bakshani - 60% share

3. Thereafter by an another reconstitution/relinquishment deed dated

06.10.2008, original the partners relinquished their respective shares in favour of the petitioners herein, thereby the first petition has 35% share and the second petitioner has 65% shares in the partnership firm. The reconstituted deed dated 06.10.2008 was presented for registration. Stamp duty was paid on 10% of the property which were relinquished by the earlier partners. The second respondent failed to register the said document for the reason that the stamp duty has to be levied on 100% of the property value and the stamp duty has to be paid for a sum of Rs.4,27,972/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and the same was dismissed by confirming the order passed by the second respondent by the Letter No.566/P1/2009, dated 05.01.2011. Therefore, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition with the above said prayer.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners submitted the document for registration only in respect of the 10% shares of the retired partners and therefore they had not paid the stamp duty for remaining 90% of the stamp duty. When the retired partners relinquished 10% of the shares in favour of the petitioners herein, the petitioners need not to pay stamp duty for the entire property viz., 100% of its value. He further submitted that all the partners are being the family members, as per Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, the dissolution of partnership firm need not to be registered. Whereas in the instance case, the petitioners are ready to pay 10% of the stamp value of the asset but the respondents are demanding for 100% value of the property. As per the Registration Act, directing the petitioners to pay stamp duty of entire property is against law. The name of the partnership firm is only compendious name given to a partnership firm and the partners are the real owners of the partnership firm. The retirement of the partners is amount to dissolution of partnership. Accordingly two partners retired from the partnership firm and their 10% shares respectively relinquished in favour of the other partners. In support of his contention, he relied upon the followed judgments :-

(i) JT 1993 (1) SC 278- S.V.Chandrapandian & ors Vs. S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & ors (ii) 2003 (3) SCC 229 – N.Khadervali Saheb (died) by LRs and anr Vs.

N.Gudu Sahib (died) by LRs and ors (iii) 2003 (1) Supreme 921 - N.Khadervali Saheb (died) by LRs and anr Vs. N.Gudu Sahib (died) by LRs and ors

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents filed counter and submitted that the petiti