JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner and his brother one Shri Achuthan Nair were carrying on business as a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 under the name and style of M/s E. P. Brothers, Ottappalam since 1st April 1946. According to the petitioner, pursuant to a decision taken by the partners to effect a dissolution of the firm as on 31st March 1970 an allocation of the assets and liabilities of the firm as between the partners was effected as per an oral arrangement and the petitioner and his brother took separate possession of the assets respectively allotted to each of them pursuant to the said allocation. A memorandum was thereafter executed by the two erstwhile partners putting on record the factum of dissolution of the partnership and the allocation of the assets and liabilities between the two partners under the oral arrangement as foresaid. That document was executed on 10th July 1970 and to it was attached the balance sheet of the firm as on 31st March 1970 as also two lists containing memoranda of the assets and liabilities allotted to and taken charge of by the petitioner and his brother respectively. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the said document together with the attached lists. 2. The document above referred to was stamped as a deed of dissolution of partnership and it was registered at the Sub Registry Office, Ottappalam as document No. P-16/70. Long thereafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 13th November 1971 from the Sub Registrar, Ottappalam whereby he was informed that it had been held by the Board of Revenue in certain proceedings dated 20th September 1971 that the document executed by the petitioner and his brother Achuthan Nair, which had been registered as document No. P-16/70 of the Sub Registry Office, Ottappalam has to be stamped as a partnership deed and that a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,727 is to be collected from the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore called upon by the Sub Registrar by the said communication to remit the amount of Rs. 7,727 into his office at a very early date. Ext. P-2 is a copy of the aforesaid communication sent to the petitioner by the Sub Registrar. 7,727 is to be collected from the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore called upon by the Sub Registrar by the said communication to remit the amount of Rs. 7,727 into his office at a very early date. Ext. P-2 is a copy of the aforesaid communication sent to the petitioner by the Sub Registrar. Along with that letter, the Sub Registrar had also forwarded to the petitioner a copy of the proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 20th September 1971 to which reference was made in Ext. P-2. 3. On receipt of Ext. P-2, the petitioner preferred a representation to the Board of Revenue wherein he submitted that the order passed by the Board on 20th September 1971 was vitiated by a failure to conform to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity had been extended to the petitioner to make his representations before the said order holding the petitioner liable for payment of the substantial amount. as the deficit stamp duty was passed by the Board of Revenue, that the view taken by the Board that the document is liable to be treated as a deed of partition for purposes of levy of stamp duty is incorrect, that in any event it involves a substantial question of law and that the Board of Revenue should therefore be pleased to state a case for the decision of the High Court under section 55 of the Kerala Stamp Act. The petitioner-representation was considered by the Board of Revenue and the request made by the petitioner for a reference of the question to the High Court under section 55 of the Kerala Stamp Act was turned down by the Board as per its order evidenced by Ext. P-4. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P-4 and paying also for the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Revenue to refer to the High Court under section 55 of the Kerala Stamp Act the question whether the document Ext. P-1 is liable, to be treated as a deed of partition for purposes of assessment of the stamp duty. 4. In the order Ext. P-1 is liable, to be treated as a deed of partition for purposes of assessment of the stamp duty. 4. In the order Ext. P-4 the Board of Revenue has taken the view that it is not a fit case for making a reference to the High Court under section 55 of the Act since no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner points out that inasmuch as the document purports to be only a memorandum of dissolution of partnership, the effect of which is merely to record the factum of a prior distribution of assets already effected between the partners under an oral arrangement which took place in March 1970, there is no justification at all for treating the document as a deed of partition. Reference was made by the learned Advocate to the definition of the expression "instrument of partition"� contained in section 2 (k) of the Act and it was contended that the document in question does not at all fall within the scope of the said definition. Counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1300 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 676 in support of his argument that no element of transfer is involved in the process of adjustment of the rights of partners in a dissolved firm and that the law does not require such an arrangement being evidenced by a registered instrument. 5. Counsel also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Deo Chand and others v. Shiv Ram and others (1969) 1 S.C.W.R. 442 that: "It is equally well settled that if the document is not a formal document effecting a partition but is only one which acknowledges a former partition orally made or is merely a memorandum of what was decided at the oral partition, it does not require registration."� Inasmuch as the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is only to compel a reference being made to this court on the question of the stamp duty lawfully payable on the instrument (Ext. P-1) I do not propose to express any opinion as to the applicability to this case of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions. P-1) I do not propose to express any opinion as to the applicability to this case of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions. It is however clear that the matter involves a substantial question of law and the contrary view expressed by the Board of Revenue cannot be accepted as correct. 6. As pointed out by Subba Rao, J. in Poosarla China Appalanarasimhalu v. Board of Revenue A.I.R. 1952 Mad.811 the power to make a reference conferred by section 55 of the Stamp Act is coupled with an obligation to make such a reference at the instance of a party on demand being made by a person aggrieved whenever there is a substantial question of law involved in the case and the said power is not intended to be used for the benefit of the Revenue only. When an important or intricate question of law in respect of the construction of a document arises, it is the duty of the Board to make the reference to the court as requested for by the party and if the Board omits to perform its function, the court will have to direct it to discharge the said duty by compelling a reference. Inasmuch as I have held that the present case involves a substantial question of law relating to the construction of the document and the determination of the correct stamp duty payable thereon, the petitioner is entitled to have a reference made to this court under section 55 of the Act. There will accordingly be a direction to the Board of Revenue to refer to this court the question relating to the stamp duty payable on the document Ex. P-I by stating a case under section 55 (i) of the Act. Until such a reference is made and a pronouncement is given thereon by this court, no further steps will be taken against the petitioner for realisation of the deficit stamp duty referred to in Exts. P-2 and P-4. Further steps pursuant to the notice Ext. P-6 should also be kept in abeyance until the matter is finally decided by this court. 7. The Original Petition is allowed as indicated above. The parties will bear their respective costs.