JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J.- This is a second appeal by the plaintiff. The short point involved is as to whether the document in question was compulsorily registerable or not. 2. The plaintiff came to the court for the recovery of Rs. 5,311.25 from the defendants on the allegation that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 together had constructed a tube-well in the field of defendant No. 1 in which both of them had share. For three years prior to 11-5-69, defendant No. 2 used to supply water from the tube-well to various cultivators in the area and used to keep accounts for the same. He having become dishonest, did not explain the position of the accounts to the plaintiff and ultimately the parties decided to part way. On 11-5-69, Therefore, an agreement was arrived at between the parties and the total value of the tube-well was assessed at Rs. 7,000/- and the partnership was dissolved under which defendants agreed to pay Rs. 3,500/- as plaintiff's share in the assets. This payment of Rs. 3,500/- was to be made in instalments carrying an interest of Rs. 1.5% per month. Since the money was not paid as agreed upon, the plaintiff led the present suit for the recovery. 3. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the land belonged exclusively to the defendant No. 1 and the tube-well was installed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 by contributing half share each and defendant No. 2 had no interest or share in the tube-well in question. That on 11-5-69 the plaintiff had not transferred his share in the tube-well in favour of defendant No. 1 and therefore, there was no question of paying any amount to the plaintiff. The agreement dated 11-5-69 was also disputed. It was also pleaded that the said agreement was not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp and registration. Lastly, it was contended that the plaintiff did not pay the share of balance of electricity charges due in respect to the tube-well in question. 4. The trial court held that the plaintiff had not undertaken to execute sale deed of his half share in the well in favour of defendants. Lastly, it was contended that the plaintiff did not pay the share of balance of electricity charges due in respect to the tube-well in question. 4. The trial court held that the plaintiff had not undertaken to execute sale deed of his half share in the well in favour of defendants. The execution of the document was proved but since the agreement was not registered one, being in respect of the half share in the tube well in question which was immovable property, the same was not admissible in evidence and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The lower appellate court also came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal holding that the agreement dated 11-5-69 was not admissible in evidence for want of registration. 5. In appeal before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehementaly argued that the relationship between the parties was not that of co-owners but of a partnership under which each of the partners had contributed for the establishment of the same equally and the agreement between them was to carry on the business of supplying water for irrigation and to share the profits and as such their relationship was that of a partner in a partnership and on the dissolution of the said partnership its assets are to be distributed even though it includes immovable property, and no transfer deed is required to be executed. The property is taken as assets of the partnership and in that respect it is the notional money value only which is considered for the purposes of distribution of the assets. Since such division of assets does not require any registration, the view of the courts below was assailed as being erroneous. In support of his case he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court. 6. Before any reference in made to the legal position if is necessary to examine as to what are the respective cases of the parties. In para 1 of the plaint there is an allegation that the tube well in question was installed in "Sajha" which could mean both partnership as well as co-ownership in para 4 of the plaint the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have turned dishonest and they are not giving the share due to the plaintiff nor they have rendered any account in respect thereof. As a dispute arose between the parties the partnership was put an end to and the value of the assets was estimated at Rs. 7,000/- out of which the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 3,500/- which the defendants had agreed to pay to the plaintiff. The defendants in their joint written statement did not specifically deny that the tube-well in question had been installed in partnership with the plaintiff although it was admitted that the plaintiff did have share in the tube well installed on the land of defendant No 1 and in para 2 of the additional pleas it was specifically stated that the tube-well had been installed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in Sajha which again could mean both partnership as well as joint ownership. It, however, appears that the patties had been treating their relationship more in the nature of a partnership rather than in the nature of co-ownership. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were liable to render accounts while the defendants alleged that the plaintiff used to realise the water charges and then used to pay the share of defendant No. 1 to him. On 25.9.72 the plaintiff was examined under Order 10, Rule 2, C.P.C., when the parties entered into the witness box the plaintiff again very specifically stated that the partnership between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 came to an end and when it so terminated the value of the tubewell was assessed to at Rs. 7,000/-. In cross-examination he has stated that whatever water was supplied to the cultivators its charges used to be realised by Onkar Singh but he did not pay the profits to the plaintiff. It was no-where challenged in the entire cross-examination that the relationship between the parties was not that of partnership but was merely of co-owners. In his statement defendant No. 2 as D.W.2 did not say about the existence or otherwise of the partnership between the parties, in respect to the tube-well in question. Even the courts below presumed that there was partnership between the parties. Therefore from all this the only conclusion that is possible to draw is that the relationship between the parties was that of partners and in that fight will have to consider the legality or otherwise of the document dated 11-5-69. Even the courts below presumed that there was partnership between the parties. Therefore from all this the only conclusion that is possible to draw is that the relationship between the parties was that of partners and in that fight will have to consider the legality or otherwise of the document dated 11-5-69. According to this agreement the value of the tube well was assessed to Rs 7,000/- and the tube well has been taken over by the defendants in their share and the price there of became payable to the plaintiff. Remaining clauses merely set out as to how the payment would be made to the plaintiff. 7. In their statement under Order 10 Rule 2 on 25.9.72 defendant No. 2 admitted that the agreement dated 11-5-69 bears signatures of defendant No. 1 and in that it had been written by defendant No. 2. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is as to whether this agreement required registration or not because it purports to transfer plaintiff's half share in the tube well in question, to the defendants. 8. The submission made on behalf of the appellants was that when the dissolution of the partnership takes place the entire assets of the partnership whether movable or immovable, are reduced in value in terms of money and the various partners are then allowed to profits according to their shares. It is not a case in which the property itself is transferred by one partner to the other but in the transaction of dissolution the entire assets are assessed in terms of money and thereafter the same is distributed among the partners. A document of this nature, therefore, does not have the effect of transfer of property but it is only a method for the distribution of the shares in the assets of a dissolved partnership and as such it does not come within the scope of Section 17 of the Registration Act. In Commissioner, Income-Tax v. Juggi Lal Kamla pat (A.I.R. 1967 S.C., 401) the Supreme Court relied upon the following observation made by it in an earlier decision in the case of A. Narayanappa v. B. Krishnappa (A.I.R. 1966, S.C. 1300) wherein it had held ; "it seems to us that looking to the Scheme of the Indian Evidence Act, no other view can reasonably be taken. The whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even properly including immovable property. Once, that is done, what ever is brought in would cease to be the exclusive property of the person who brought it in. It would be the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the extent of his share in the business of the partnership. As already stated, his right during the subsistence of the partnership is to get his share of profits from the time as may be agreed upon among the partners and after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from the partnership of the value of his share in the partnership assets as on the date of the dissolution or retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges." 9. In view of this clear observation of the Supreme Court the nature of partnership assets cannot be equated with that of co-ownership property. The interest of the partner in the property does not exist except to the extent that he would be entitled to any profits that may be earned by the partnership. This too at the time of the dissolution of the partnership. At that time whatever assets or the value thereof may be allotted to a partner becomes his property but at no stage during subsistence of the partnership can a partner say that such and such property was contributed by him and, therefore, it is owned by him. All the properties contributed by various partners become the property of the partnership and cease to belong to an individual partner and are to be distributed only at me time of the dissolution or retirement of the partners. All the properties contributed by various partners become the property of the partnership and cease to belong to an individual partner and are to be distributed only at me time of the dissolution or retirement of the partners. In the result, therefore, the tube well which had been not installed by the parties by contributing money with an object of earning profits by supplying water for irrigation to the cultivators and to share the profits equally among themselves shall mean that a venture in the nature of a partnership came into existence and only at the time of its dissolution, the partnership assets had to be valued and distributed. In doing so, the partnership assets had to be valued and distributed among partners. The value of the tube well, which was the only property of belonging to the partnership was estimated to be Rs. 7,000/- and since the plaintiff share in these assets came to Rs. 3,500/- the same became payable to him as per terms of the agreement as the defendant no. 1 wanted to retain the entire tube well. A deed of this nature by which assets of a dissolved partnership had been distributed therefore, did not require registration. This is the view expressed in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Juggi Lal Kamlapat (Supra) also. The courts below have also held that the plaintiff had never agreed to transfer his share in the tube-well to the defendants. The only ground on which the plaintiff has been non-suited was that the document required registration. The deficiency in the stamp duty had already been made good in the trial court before the document was admitted on the record. Since, I have held that the relationship between the parties was in the nature of partners of a partnership and a deed of dissolution of partnership does not require registration even though it purported to transfer proprietory interest in immovable property belongs to the partnership the decision of the courts below on this point was clearly wrong. The deed paper No-5-Kha did not therefore require registration and the same was binding between the parties. I am, therefore, of the view that the courts below were not right in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of the amount due from the defendants. 10. The deed paper No-5-Kha did not therefore require registration and the same was binding between the parties. I am, therefore, of the view that the courts below were not right in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of the amount due from the defendants. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with 6% pendente lite and future interest.