SHOLLY VINCENT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question in this case arises for consideration is whether the revenue authorities are bound to effect transfer of registry of the properties which are alleged to have been brought into the stock of the firm consequent upon dissolution of the firm without there being a registered document transferring the interest of partners.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions were partners of a registered firm called "Universal Builders and Developers". The firm was constituted on 18.12010 and registered in the year 2015. The partners of the firm brought their individual property into the common stock of the firm. Thereafter, the firm was dissolved by a deed of dissolution entered between the parties by 1.3.2016. By the deed of dissolution, the properties of the firm have been settled among the partners. By such settlement, some of the original properties of the individual parties have been exchanged with that of other partners. Since the transfer of registry stood in the name of an individual partner by exchange of property as part of distribution of surplus assets of the firm, it was required to change transfer of registry in the name of other partners. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the revenue authorities for effecting transfer of registry. The revenue authorities refused to effect transfer of registry. Accordingly, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.Narendra Kumar and the learned State Attorney, Sri.K.V.Sohan.