Judgment :- City Jewellery was a firm of jewelers carrying on business in Thrissur Town in the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. It consisted of two partners, P.N. Vasudevan and one C.P. Anto, who died on 24-10-1974. The business was continued thereafter by P.N. Vasudevan as a sole proprietory, when on 1-4-1986, he converted it into a firm along with frisson P.V. Suresh, who was inducted as a partner. The said Suresh is the Managing Partner of the firm. This new firm of Vasudevan and Suresh was registered as a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act for short) on 1-4-1986 and is doing its business in Thrissur in the same name and style of City Jewellery. 2. The erstwhile firm of Vasudevan and Anto owed a substantial amount of Rs. 275345-70 by way of sales tax, surcharge and penal interest for the two years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the payment of which had been defaulted. The assessing authority therefore initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount under S.23(2) of the Act and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur issued notice calling upon City Jewellery to make payment of the amount due. The amount not having been paid, the jewellery items in the shop, City Jewellery were attached and taken away on 23-9-1986, and posted for sale on 13-6-1989. P.V. Suresh, the Managing Partner of the new firm, City Jewellery, objected to the attachment before the Revenue Divisional Officer, a copy of the objection being Ext. P4, with a request that the items attached and removed may be released to him. No formal order appears to have been passed thereon. It was nevertheless that the items were proclaimed for sale on 13-6-1989, whereupon the petitioner filed this original petition for quashing the proceedings leading to the seizure of the jewellery items, and for a direction to the respondents to return the same to it. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which they point out that substantial amounts were due from the erstwhile firm of Vasudevan and anto, and it was for the recovery of that amount that the jewellery items were seized. The counter affidavit makes it'clear that no proceedings for recovery have been initiated against the present firm and that the steps are directed only for recovery of the liability of the erstwhile firm. The counter affidavit makes it'clear that no proceedings for recovery have been initiated against the present firm and that the steps are directed only for recovery of the liability of the erstwhile firm. The partners of the firm are liable for its liabilities, if the firm is already dissolved, and therefore the proceedings in question which are directed against P.N. Vasudevan are not justified. 4. There is no dispute that the firm City Jewellery, as at present constituted- is a firm with two partners, Vasudevan and Suresh, of whom Vasudevan was a partner of the erstwhile firm. It is pursuant to proceedings against Vasudevan, that all the jewellery items in the new firm, City Jewellery, were seized and taken away, and proclaimed for sale. The amount sought to be recovered is due only from the partners of the erstwhile firm, including Vasudevan. The question is whether the movable properties of the new firm are liable to be attached, seized and removed for recovery of the dues of one of its partners. 5. The liability of Vasudevan for the arrears of tax of the old firm of City Jewellery cannot be disputed, in the light of S.21 A of the Act. The only question is whether the modus operandi adopted for the realisation of the dues, by seizure and removal of the movables of the new firm is legally punishable. 6. In Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the rights of a partner in the property of the firm, during the subsistence of the partnership. After a conspectus of the provisions of the Partnership Act, it was observed: - "From a perusal of these- provisions, it would be abundantly clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the partnership is formed or which may be acquired in the course of the business of the partnership it becomes the property of the firm and what a partner is entitled to is his share of profits, if any, accruing to the partnership from the realisation of this property, and upon dissolution of the partnership to a share in the money representing the value of the property. No doubt, since a firm has no legal existence, the partnership property will vest in all the partners and in that sense every partner has an interest in the property of the partnership. During the subsistence of the partnership, however, no partner can deal with any portion of the property as his own. Nor can he assign his interest in a specific items of the partnership property to anyone. His right is to obtain such profits, if any, as fall to his share from time to time and upon the dissolution of the firm to a share in the assets of the firm, which remain after satisfying the liabilities set out in Cl. (a) and sub-Cls. (i), (ii) and (iii) of Cl.(b) of S.48". It is therefore obvious that during subsistence of the firm, no partner can predicate that he has got a particular definite share in any asset of the firm. While the partners are co-owners or joint owners of the assets of the firm that does not mean that each of them has got a definite predicated share in each of the assets. Much will also depend upon the state of accounts between the partners. In many cases, it may be impossible to say what the share of the partner is at a given point of time, whether the firm is indebted to him or whether he is indebted to the firm (Jagannath Raghunathdas v. Emperor AIR 1932 Bom. 57, Bhuban Mohan Das v. Surendra Mohan Das, AIR 1951 Cal. 69 (FB)). When a partner has thus no definite assignable interest in any item of partnership property during the subsistence of the firm, it follows as a corollary that no specific property of the firm could be attached for recovery of the personal dues of one of the partners. That is the reason why a special provision is made in sub-rule (1) of rule 49 of Order 21 C.P.C. against the attachment and sale of property belonging to a partnership in execution of a decree, unless it be a decree passed against the firm or against the partners of the firm as such. The procedure to be followed in the case of a decree against any of the partners is laid down in sub-rate (2). The procedure to be followed in the case of a decree against any of the partners is laid down in sub-rate (2). The court may, on the application of the decree holder, make an order charging the interest of the partner in the partnership property and profits with payment of the amount due under the decree and may also appoint a Receiver of the share of such partner in the profits (whether already declared or accruing) and of any other money which may be coming to him in respect of the partnership, and direct accounts and enquiries, and make an order for the sale of such interest such other order, as the circumstances of the case may require. To the like effect is the provision in Rule 32 of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Unfortunately there is no such provision in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or the Rules framed thereunder, which, apart from declaring the partners' liability for payment of the tax due from a firm, do not lay down the mode of effecting an attachment of the partner's share in the partnership property. The proper procedure to follow for realisation of a person's dues by proceeding against the property of a firm of which he is a partner is as laid down in Order 21 Rule 49(2) of the C.P.C., or in Rule 32 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. A similar situation arose in K.O. Mohamed Sulaiman & Co. v. State of Madras (1965) 16 STC 571, where it was held by the High Court of Madras that, where a person happens to be a common partner in two fir-ms, the State, while realising the arrears of sales tax due from one of the firms or from him as a partner thereof, was not entitled to. seize the movable properties of the other firm, of which also he was a partner, because so long as the partnership was a going concern, no partner could assert or or predicate that he was the owner of any particular share in any particular asset, movable or immovable. seize the movable properties of the other firm, of which also he was a partner, because so long as the partnership was a going concern, no partner could assert or or predicate that he was the owner of any particular share in any particular asset, movable or immovable. Central Glass Factory (Madras) v. Special Commercial Tax Officer, (1967) 20 STC 69, also dealt with a similar situation, and it was held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh following the decisions of the Lahore High Court in Ajudhia Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham Sunder, AIR 1947 Lahore 13, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1959 A.P. 380 that the course adopted by the authorities of seizing the properties of a different firm of which the defaulter was a partner was not legal. 8. Ammonia Supply Corporation v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, (1972) 29 STC 356, of the High Court of Madras is another case in point. 9. The principle thus established, is that specific assets of a firm are not answerable for the personal dues of one of its partners. They are not liable to be attached or seized, for the recovery of such dues of one of the partners unless the liability is that of the firm, or the partner is liable only in his capacity as a partner of the firm. Therefore the seizure of the items of jewellery in the petitioner's shop on 23-9-1986 for realisation of the amount due from Vasudevan as a partner of the erstwhile firm, was illegal and improper. I allow the original petition and quash the seizure of the movables by Ext. P3 on 23-9-1986. But I make it clear that it will be open to the respondents to proceed in manner permitted by law for realisation of the dues of P.N. Vasudevan. The movables seized as per Ext. P3 shall be returned to the firm City Jewellery with all expedition. No costs.