Judgment 1. This is an application filed by for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property. 2. The brief averments found in the application filed by the plaintiffs: The plaintiffs are represented by their power of attorney K.N. Sudhakar. The suit is filed for partition of the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property. The defendants have no right to alienate the suit property or their interest therein. In any case the suit property remains undivided. The defendants cannot earmark and sell away the portion of the suit property. The defendants have proposed to put up some construction on the suit land. If they are allowed to do so, it will not only change the character of the suit property, but also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the defendants should be restrained from dealing with the suit property. 3. The third defendant has simply adopted the counter filed by the first and second defendants. The fourth defendant has set up a similar counter plea as that of the defendants 1 and 2 in his counter. 4. The counter case of the defendants, therefore, is as follows: (i) The first defendant is the son of the second defendant. The third defendant is the brother of the father of the first plaintiff. The fourth defendant has purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 and 2. M.C. Chokkalingam, the father of the first plaintiff, M.C. Chandrasekaran and M.C. Nithyanantham the sons of late M.C. Sambandha Mudaliar became divided in status, having got themselves allotted to them each individually 1/3rd share in the property known as Kapalai Talkies situated at Door No. 52, Ramakrishna Math Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 28 under the Partition Deed dated 30.11.1964. (ii) M/s. M.C. Chokkalingam, M.C. Chandrasekaran and M.C. Nithyanandam constituted a Partnership firm by a Deed of Partnership dated 12. 1964, subscribing thereto their each individual 1/3 share and interest in the said Cinema Theatre. The Cinema Theatre. The Cinema Theater became a property of the said partnership firm in terms of Partnership Deed dated 12. 1964. On 4. 1975, the said three partners dissolved the partnership firm Kapali Talkies under the Deed of Dissolution of partnership firm dated 4. 1964, subscribing thereto their each individual 1/3 share and interest in the said Cinema Theatre. The Cinema Theatre. The Cinema Theater became a property of the said partnership firm in terms of Partnership Deed dated 12. 1964. On 4. 1975, the said three partners dissolved the partnership firm Kapali Talkies under the Deed of Dissolution of partnership firm dated 4. 1975, whereby M.C. Chokkalingam was allotted absolutely to his share and interest in the firm the entire business of the firm with all rights, assets, liabilities and the books of accounts and the properties of the firm and the goodwill thereof. (iii) On the dissolution of the firm, M.C. Chokkalingam became the sole, exclusive and absolute owner of the Cinema Theatre Kapali Talkies. The dissolution of the partnership firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms, Chennai. It was also notified in a vernacular daily newspaper Dina Thanthi dated 27. 1975. It was also notified in the Tamil Nadu State Government Gazette dated 30.7.1975. The ownership was also mutated in the name of M.C. Chokkalingam with the consent of his other brothers. (iv) The first second plaintiffs being the son and wife of M.C. Chokkalingam have become the absolute and exclusive owners and proprietors of the Cinema Theatre Kapali Talkies after the demise of M.C. Chokkalingam intestate on 12. 1986. The defendants 1 and 2 have already sold away the suit properties to the fourth defendant. The fourth defendant having obtained construction permit has put up construction in the suit property. Therefore, the defendants would submit that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as sought for. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the dissolution of the partnership firm dated 4. 1975 was not properly stamped and registered, as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The fact remains that the private money was pumped into when the entire property of the partnership firm was allotted to the share of M.C. Chokkalingam. Such an unregistered document is inadmissible in law. The insufficiently stamped document cannot be relied upon even for collateral purpose. There had been long cohabitation between M.C. Chandrasekaran and the mother of the plaintiffs. The paternity of the plaintiffs is not under challenge now. Such an unregistered document is inadmissible in law. The insufficiently stamped document cannot be relied upon even for collateral purpose. There had been long cohabitation between M.C. Chandrasekaran and the mother of the plaintiffs. The paternity of the plaintiffs is not under challenge now. The lawful cohabitation gives rise to a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the mother of the plaintiffs and M.C. Chandrasekaran had lived together as husband and wife. It is his further submission that if the defendants are permitted to alienate the property, when the defendants have come out with a prima facie case as regards their 1/3 share in the Suit Property, there will be multiplicity of proceedings and third party right also would be created. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would contend that no private money was pumped into the partnership firm at the time of dissolution thereof. There was settlement of the accounts of the partnership firm between the partners. Payment of Rs.3 lakhs each to the brothers of M.C. Chokkalingam was only an adjustments made while settling the accounts of the partnership firm M.C. Chokkalingam got the entire property on dissolution of the partnership – firm with all its liabilities. Therefore, such a Dissolution Deed does not require registration and there is no-deficit stamp duty also, inasmuch as stamp papers worth the value of Rs.35 was purchased and used for preparing the Deed of Dissolution, as contemplated under Article 46 of the Stamp Act. The Court will have to take note of the fact that M.C. Chandrasekaran for 20 long years during his life time thought it fit not to challenge the allotment of the theatre to the share of M.C. Chokkalingam under the Deed of Dissolution of partnership firm. The under voluminous documents produced would go to show that M.C. Chokkalingam under thereafter the defendants 1 and 2 have dealt with the property, having got patta and other revenue records mutated in their name. The Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs has ventured to purchase a litigation by obtaining power of attorney from the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The Court shall not permit such a blackmail emanated from a party, who would not have any semblance of right or title over the property. The Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs has ventured to purchase a litigation by obtaining power of attorney from the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The Court shall not permit such a blackmail emanated from a party, who would not have any semblance of right or title over the property. The Court will have to seriously take note of the conduct of the parties, who have come to this Court long after notice was issued by them to the defendants 1 and 2. 7. M.C. Chokkalingam, M.C. Chandrasekaran and M.C. Nithyanandam are the sons of late M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar. The documents produced on the side of the defendants would go to establish that there was a registered partition deed entered into between the parties on 30.11.1964. As far as the suit property is concerned, it is found that the aforesaid three brothers were allotted 1/3 undivided share each under the said Partition Deed. The registered partition Deed. The registered partition Deed dated 12. 1964 would go to establish that all the aforesaid three brothers formed a registered partnership firm and carried on business in the name and style of “Kapali Talkies”. Having put in their 1/3 undivided shares, each of them were entitled to their respective share in the partnership firm. By consent of the partnership it is found that the partnership firm was dissolved as per the Deed of Dissolution dated 4. 1975. M.C. Chokkalingam had exclusively taken over the entire running business in the name and style of Kapali Talkies with the all its liabilities and agreed to pay each a sum of Rs.3 lakhs in respect of the shares of the other two brothers. 8. It is not as if the dissolution of the partnership firm was kept as a secret. Public notice of the dissolution of firm was given in the Tamil Daily Dina Thanthi on 27. 1975. In the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the dissolution of the Partnership firm Kapali Talkies was notified on 30.7.1975. The Registrar of Firm also issued a Certificate on 18. 1975 acknowledging the dissolution of the partnership firm Kapali Talkies. 9. The documents produced on the said of the defendants would go to establish that M.C. Chokkalingam later on dealt with the property by leasing out the same to one D.K. Sekar under a registered Lease Deed dated 25. 1976. The Registrar of Firm also issued a Certificate on 18. 1975 acknowledging the dissolution of the partnership firm Kapali Talkies. 9. The documents produced on the said of the defendants would go to establish that M.C. Chokkalingam later on dealt with the property by leasing out the same to one D.K. Sekar under a registered Lease Deed dated 25. 1976. Later on, M.C. Chokkalingam leased out the Kapali Talkies to S.M. Bakthavatchalu by a registered Lease Deed dated 6. 1981. Even after the demise of M.C. Chokkalingam, the defendants 1 and 2 being the legal representatives of M.C. Chokkaligam, leased out the premises to the very same S.M. Bakthavatchalu under the registered Lease Deed dated 16. 1991. 10. M.C. Chokkalingam passed away on 12. 1986. His brother M.C. Chandrasekaran died intestate on 25. 1995. M.C. Chandrasekaran had not chosen to raise his little finger as against the dissolution of the partnership firm under which the entire share in Kapali Talkies was allotted to M.C. Chokkalingam. The right, title and possession to Kapali Talkies were asserted for about 20 long years by M.C. Chokkalingam and there after his descendants, namely the defendants 1 and 2, but it was not challenged by M.C. Chandrasekaran. 11. The defendants 1 and 2 asserted their absolute right over the Suit Property in the proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.14743 of 1996. M.C. Banumathi, wife of M.C. Chandrasekaran died intestate on 26. 1998. Never had she challenged the authority of M.C. Chokkalingam or his descendants over the Suit Property till her death in 1998. 12. The plaintiffs have issued notice through their advocates to the defendants 1 to 3 way back on 212. 2002. But quite unfortunately, the plaintiffs for the reasons best known to them have waited for four long years and thereafter instituted the present suit, having given power of attorney in favour of K.N. Sudhakar. K.N. Sudhakar has chosen to enter into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs on 210. 2006 agreeing to purchase the undivided 1/3 share in the Suit Property for a total consideration of Rs.3,75,00,000/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, patta was obtained by M.C. Chokkalingam in his name and the entire revenue records stand mutated in the name of M.C. Chokkalingam and after his demise, in the name of his descendants, namely the defendants 1 and 2. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, patta was obtained by M.C. Chokkalingam in his name and the entire revenue records stand mutated in the name of M.C. Chokkalingam and after his demise, in the name of his descendants, namely the defendants 1 and 2. 13. The defendants have shown before the Court prima facie that there was a partition in the family consisting of M.C. Chokkalingam, M.C. Chandrasekaran and M.C. Nithyanandam. Each of the brothers was allotted 1/3 share in the Suit Property. All the three brothers formed a partnership firm and pumped in to the firm each of their shares in order to carry on business in the name and style of Kapali Talkies. Under the dissolution of the firm, the Suit Property was allotted to the share of M.C. Chokkalingam. He had enjoyed of the property by leasing out the same. His descendants thereafter followed suit. 14. Coming to the plea of the plaintiffs, except their legal submission that the dissolution of the partnership Deed was not properly stamped and registered and therefore, it cannot be relied upon by the Court, no other substantial documents is forthcoming to make a lawful claim in the Suit Property. 15. Of Course, the plaintiffs claim 1/3 share in the suit property being the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate of M.C. Chandrasekaran. When the documents produced on the side of the defendants would go to show that M.C. Chandrasekaran does not have any right or title over the suit property, the plaintiffs, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate cannot have any share in the suit property. 16. Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with mode of settlement of accounts between the partners. The aforesaid provision of law deals with the rules to be deserved by the partners while settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution. The assets of firm are finally distributed during the course of settlement of the account of the firm. Basically, the distribution of assets among partners on dissolution of the partnership firm does not amount to transfer of assets. Therefore, it does not attract the mischief of Section 17 of the Registration Act if it deals with the share of a partner in the assets of the partnership firm inclusive of immovable property. Basically, the distribution of assets among partners on dissolution of the partnership firm does not amount to transfer of assets. Therefore, it does not attract the mischief of Section 17 of the Registration Act if it deals with the share of a partner in the assets of the partnership firm inclusive of immovable property. The assignment of the share on dissolution of the partnership firm does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 17. The said legal position, which has been ruling the field was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in S.V. Chandra Pandian and Others v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 589 . However, the Supreme Court quoted therein with approval, the following observations made in an earlier case. “If the award did not seek to assign the share of the respondents to the appellant, but on the contrary made an exclusive allotment of the partnership assets including the factory and liabilities to the appellant, thereby creating an absolute interest on payment of consideration of Rs.17,000/- plus half the amount of the realizable debts, which was held to be compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act”. 18. It has been further held therein that when a particular property is allotted to a partner in proportion to his share in the profits of the firm, there is no partition or transfer taking place nor is there any extinguishment of interest of other partners in the allocated property in the sense of transfer or extinguishment of interest as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, when a dissolution of the partnership firm takes place and the residue is distributed among the partners after settlement of accounts Registration Act there is no partition, transfer or extinguishment of interest attracting the mischief of Section 17 of the Registration Act. 19. The Supreme Court in N. Khadarval Saheb and Another v. N. Gudu Sahib (dead) and Others AIR 2003 SC 1524 : (2003) 3 SCC 229 : (2003) 2 MLJ 134, has held as follows: “On dissolution of the partnership firm, accounts are settled among the partners and the assets of the partnership are distributed amongst the partners as per their respective share in the partnership firm. Thus, on dissolution of a partnership firm, the allotment of assets to individual partners is not a case of transfer of any assets of the firm. Thus, on dissolution of a partnership firm, the allotment of assets to individual partners is not a case of transfer of any assets of the firm. The assets which hereinbefore belonged to each partner, will after dissolution of the firm stand allotted to the partners individually. There is no transfer or assignment of ownership in any of the assets. This is the legal consequence of distribution of assets on dissolution of a partnership firm. The distribution of assets may be done either by way of an arbitration award or by mutual settlement between the partners themselves. The document which records the settlement in this case is an award which does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act since the document does not transfer or assign interest in any assets. This question stands concluded by a decision of this Court in S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar.(supra)” 20. In the light of the above ratio, the Court will have to decide whether there was any transfer of interest, which requires registration under Section 17 of Registration Act. Coming to the terms of dissolution of partnership firm dated 4. 1975, it is found that the suit property with all its liabilities including the income tax and all other tax assessment, demands and dues, debts and loans and other obligations pertaining to the firm was allotted to the share of M.C. Chockalingam, M.C. Chandrasekaran and M.C. Nithyanandam have agreed to receive a sum of Rs.3 lakhs each from M.C. Chockalingam on realization towards settlement of their respective shares and interest in and over the firm. A period of about 10 years was contemplated for payment of the said amount to M.C. Chandrasekaran and M.C. Nithyanandam by M.C. Chockalingam. If we read the entire terms and conditions found in the Deed of Dissolution, it is found that the said amount of Rs. 3 lakhs each undertaken to be paid by M.C. Chockalingam to his other two brothers is out of the residue found on settlement of the entire accounts of the firm. No private money was pumped into in dividing the shares under the Deed of Dissolution. Therefore, the Deed of Dissolution entered into between the parties does not require any registration. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, the Deed of Dissolution was prepared on a stamp paper valued at Rs. No private money was pumped into in dividing the shares under the Deed of Dissolution. Therefore, the Deed of Dissolution entered into between the parties does not require any registration. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, the Deed of Dissolution was prepared on a stamp paper valued at Rs. 35/- as per Article 46 of the Stamp Act. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs cited four decisions to bring home to the point that a document insufficiently stamped shall not be looked into even for collateral purpose. As it is found that the Deed of Dissolution does not require any registration and the stamp duty has been property paid as per Article 46 of the Stamp Act, those authorities do not have any relevant to the case. 22. The Supreme Court in M/s. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. and Others v. M/s. Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 2 LW 29 and also in Mandali Ranganna and Others v. T. Ramachandra and Others (2008) 4 LW 814 has held that while considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, but it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. 23. In the instant case, it is found that the deed of dissolution of the partnership firm on 4. 1975 was not challenged by the party to the dissolution of the partnership firm till his death on 25. 1995. There was no challenge to the Deed of Dissolution of the partnership firm from any quarters for about 28 long years. The plaintiffs had not chosen challenge the right and title of the defendants 1 and 2 immediately after the expiry of three years from the date when they attained majority. It is not a case of one co-owner challenges the right or title asserted by the other co-owner who holds the property in trust for all the co-owners. The dissolution of the partnership firm crystalises the right and title of the respective parties. For 20 long years, no one whispered about the dissolution of partnership firm. Even after issuing notice, the plaintiffs waited for four long years to lay the suit. The dissolution of the partnership firm crystalises the right and title of the respective parties. For 20 long years, no one whispered about the dissolution of partnership firm. Even after issuing notice, the plaintiffs waited for four long years to lay the suit. The agreement of sale executed by the plaintiffs in favour of their power of attorney holder with respect to their alleged 1/3 share in this property speaks volumes of their agenda in institution of the present suit. 24. The Court finds that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of an order of injunction. The fourth defendant, who purchased the suit property from the first and second defendants, has already developed the property in a large scale spending about 25 Crores of Rupees. Major part of the property after development had already been sold away by the fourth defendant. If an order of injunction restraining the alienation is granted, much hardship will be caused to the defendants. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondents. 25. Therefore, the application seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with or alienating the Suit Property stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.