JUDGMENT Das, J. - The suit out of which the present appeal arises is one for a declaration of the Plaintiffs' half share in a certain plot of land and structure standing thereon and for joint possession together with a claim for rent in respect of the Plaintiffs' half-share. The facts leading up to the suit are as follows: In 1929 the Plaintiffs, Defendant No. 2 and his brother, who has since died, representing their respective joint families entered into an agreement to carry on business in partnership. There is no dispute that the shares of the Plaintiffs were half, and the shares of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were 6/16th, and that of the Defendant No. 8 was 2/16th. This partnership business was carried on at the premises erected on a plot of land which had been acquired by Defendant No. 2. The Plaintiffs' case is that at the time the partnership agreement was entered into, it was also agreed that the plot of land should be treated as partnership property and regarded as the Defendants' contribution towards the capital of the business. The Plaintiffs' case further is that certain structures were erected on that land by and with partnership moneys. This partnership continued up to April, 1931, when it was dissolved. The Plaintiffs state that at the time of dissolution it was arranged that the Plaintiffs would have a half share in the land and structures but that the Defendants would carry on their own business on the same premises on payment of reasonable rent to the Plaintiffs in respect of the Plaintiffs' half-share therein. Rent was actually paid by the Defendants for a number of years. For the years 1989 to 1991 Sambat they paid at the rate of Rs. 120 per year; for 1992 Shambat they paid Rs. 140 and for the years 1993 to 1994 Shambat they paid rent at the rate of Rs. 200 per year. When rent for the year 1995 Shambat was demanded, the Defendants did not pay any sum and denied the Plaintiffs' title to the premises altogether. The Plaintiffs, therefore, riled the suit for a declaration of their half-share in the premises and for joint possession and also for a decree for arrears of rent. 2. 200 per year. When rent for the year 1995 Shambat was demanded, the Defendants did not pay any sum and denied the Plaintiffs' title to the premises altogether. The Plaintiffs, therefore, riled the suit for a declaration of their half-share in the premises and for joint possession and also for a decree for arrears of rent. 2. The trial Court found on the evidence that the parties had agreed that the land should be treated as partnership property and that in fact it was so treated, but held that, as there was no conveyance by Defendant No. 2 to the firm by means of a registered deed, no title passed from Defendant No. 2 to the firm and accordingly the Plaintiffs did not get any title to the land, As regards the structures, the trial Court found that they had been erected with the funds of the partnership, and therefore, they formed part of the partnership properties, so that the Plaintiffs had a half-share in those structures. The trial Court also held that the Defendants, being tenants, were estopped from denying the Plaintiffs' title as long as they did not give up possession of the properties. Accordingly, the trial Court passed a decree declaring the Plaintiffs' title to the land during the period in which the present possession of Defendant No. 2 and the heirs of his deceased brother would continue, and declaring the Plaintiffs' title to the structures and directing delivery of possession and payment of Rs. 250 for arrears of rent. 3. An appeal was taken from this decision of the Subordinate Judge to the District Judge. The learned District Judge, in agreement with the trial Court, held that the land in question was the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 2. In disagreement with the trial Court, the learned District Judge held that the structures had been constructed by Defendant No. 2 before the partnership came into existence and, therefore, also belonged to Defendant No. 2. The lower Appellate Court found that the land and the houses had in fact been used for the partnership business. The learned Judge was also of opinion, having regard to Exs. 3, 9 and 10, that the admissions contained therein were clear that the half-share of the property in question was assigned to the Plaintiffs on dissolution of the partnership. The lower Appellate Court found that the land and the houses had in fact been used for the partnership business. The learned Judge was also of opinion, having regard to Exs. 3, 9 and 10, that the admissions contained therein were clear that the half-share of the property in question was assigned to the Plaintiffs on dissolution of the partnership. He did not reverse the finding of the trial Court to the effect that there was an agreement to make the laud in suit the property of the partnership, and that it had actually been treated as such. He, however, held that the transfer of the property by the Defendant No. 2 to the partnership should have been by a document in writing and registered. Reading his judgment as a whole, it appears to us that the learned Judge's finding that the title to the property was not transferred from Defendant No. 2 to the firm was based entirely on the fact that there had been no registered deed of conveyance. 4. Turning now to sec. 239 of the Indian Contract Act, which was in force at the time when this partnership was entered into, it will appear that partnership is defined as the relation which subsists between persons who agree to combine their property, labour or skill for some business and to share the profits thereof between them. Sec. 253 of the same Act provides, amongst other things, that all partners are joint owners of all properties originally brought into the partnership stock, or bought with money belonging to the partnership or acquired for purposes of the partnership business. The last-mentioned section corresponds to sec. 14 of the Indian Partnership Act which is now in force. Then sec. 265 of the Contract Act which is replaced by sec. 46 of the Partnership Act entitles the partners, on dissolution, to have the surplus assets distributed amongst themselves according to their respective shares. These sections do not prescribe any particular mode by which properties have to be brought into common stock. It is true that the mere fact that properties belonging to one of the partners have been used for the purpose of the partnership business does not make those properties partnership properties. The question whether the separate property of a partner has become partnership property depends ultimately on the real intention of the partners. It is true that the mere fact that properties belonging to one of the partners have been used for the purpose of the partnership business does not make those properties partnership properties. The question whether the separate property of a partner has become partnership property depends ultimately on the real intention of the partners. In this case the trial Court found that there was an agreement between the partners to make the properties in suit the properties of the partnership and that they were actually treated as such. There is no reversal of this finding of fact by the lower Appellate Court, and, as we have said, reading the judgment of the lower Appellate Court as a whole, it appears to be clear that the basis of his finding that the properties did not become partnership properties was that there had been no conveyance by means of a registered document. We are unable to accept the proposition of law adopted by the Courts below. Under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, or the Partnership Act to which we have referred, for the purpose of bringing the separate property of a partner into the stock of the firm, it is not necessary to have recourse to any written document at all. As soon as the partners intend that their separate properties should become partnership properties and they are treated as such, then by virtue of the provisions contained in those sections the properties become the properties' of the firm. This result, in our view, is not prohibited by any provision in the Transfer of Property Act or the Indian Registration Act. In England similar questions have arisen with reference to the Statute of Frauds and there also it has been held that it is competent for the partners by agreement amongst themselves to convert that which was the separate property of an individual partner into partnership property and that neither a deed nor even a writing is absolutely necessary, (see Lindley on Partnership, 10th Edition, page 410). 5. In our view, having regard to the facts of this case as found by the Courts below, both the land and the structures thereon became partnership properties. 5. In our view, having regard to the facts of this case as found by the Courts below, both the land and the structures thereon became partnership properties. This being the position, the subsequent arrangement at the time of dissolution of the partnership that the Plaintiffs would have a half-share in the land and structures cannot be held to offend against any provision of law. Indeed, the learned Advocate, appearing for the minor Respondents, conceded that he could not contend that a registered document was necessary to bring in the land and the structures into the common stock. His only contention was that on a reading of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court it was apparent that that Court found as a fact that the properties in question had not in fact been brought into the common stock. We are unable to agree with him in this behalf. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the Plaintiffs have established their title to a half-share in the land and the structures. 6. Another point was raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellants, namely, that the Defendants, being tenants, were estopped from denying the title of the Plaintiffs by reason of the provision of sec. 116 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court gave effect to this contention, but it was overruled by the learned District Judge. Having regard to the frame of the suit and the reliefs' claimed therein, we are unable to hold that this suit was a simple suit by a landlord against his tenant. The estoppel arises out of the relationship of landlord and tenant and may be availed of in a suit instituted by the landlord as such against the tenant. This estoppel continues until the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases and even after the termination of that relationship until the possession obtained by the tenant is delivered back to the landlord. The present suit as framed, however, is much wider in its scope. It seeks for a declaration of title as co-owner and for joint possession with the other co-owners. In these circumstances we are inclined to agree with the learned District Judge that the plea of estoppel was not available against the Defendants in so far as the suit was in the nature of a declaratory suit. It seeks for a declaration of title as co-owner and for joint possession with the other co-owners. In these circumstances we are inclined to agree with the learned District Judge that the plea of estoppel was not available against the Defendants in so far as the suit was in the nature of a declaratory suit. In view of the conclusion we have arrived at on the first question, however, this question need not be discussed at any greater length. 7. The result, in our opinion, is that the decrees of the Courts below must be set aside and this appeal allowed. There will be a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs declaring that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a half-share in the land and the structures thereon and for joint possession thereof with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs will also get a decree for Rs. 250 for rent against Defendant No. 2 and the heirs of his deceased brother, limited to the latter's estate. The Plaintiffs will get the costs of the Courts below. As there is no appearance on behalf of other Respondents than the minors in this Court, we make no order as to costs of this Court. Biswas, J. I agree.