JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a Limited Company, which was formed by converting a partnership firm by name Tali Traders in terms of Section 366 of the Companies Act, 2013. The said firm was the owner of the subject property under and by virtue of Ext.P2 document. Upon incorporation of the Company, all the assets of the partnership firm, including the subject immovable property, stood vested with the newly incorporated Company, statutorily, by operation of Section 368 of Companies Act, 2013. 2. Taking stock of such statutory vesting, mutation has already been effected in the name of the petitioner company and petitioner is accordingly the absolute owner in possession of the subject property. However, when the petitioner seeks financial facilities from banks, the entry in the Encumbrance Certificate stands in between. As per the Encumbrance Certificate, the subject property is in the name of the firm, which will be changed only pursuant to a corresponding entry to be made in Book No.1 in terms of the Registration Act and Rules. Petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar to make necessary entry in Book No.1 maintained under the Registration Act, as regards the vesting of the subject property in the name of the petitioner company. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Sections 366 and 368 of the Companies Act, 2013 and contends that all the property, both movable and immovable, which belonged to the partnership firm had vested with the petitioner company by operation of Section 368 of the Companies Act. According to the learned counsel, Section 89 gives adequate guidelines as regards the entries to be made in Book No.1 and refusal by the 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar to effect an entry, recording the vesting of the subject property in the petitioner company, is grossly illegal, besides visiting the petitioner company with serious consequences, especially in the matter of availing credit facilities from banks. 5. Learned Government Pleader would submit that Rule 16 to the Registration Rules (Kerala) specifies the nature of the entries to be made in Book No.1. Sans those that are specifically referred to in Rule 16, no other entry could be made in Book No.1, is the submission made. 5. Learned Government Pleader would submit that Rule 16 to the Registration Rules (Kerala) specifies the nature of the entries to be made in Book No.1. Sans those that are specifically referred to in Rule 16, no other entry could be made in Book No.1, is the submission made. Learned Government Pleader would, however, submit that the factum of statutory vesting in terms of the Companies Act, thereby recognising the petitioner company as the owner of the subject property, is not being disputed by the official respondents, especially when mutation has already been effected in favour of the petitioner company. 6. This Court is of the opinion that the issue can be resolved by referring Section 89(5) of the Registration Act: “89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed. (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) xxx (5) Every Court passing- (a) any decree or order creating, declaring, (a) any decree or order creating, declaring, transferring, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest to or in immovable property in favour of or of any person, or (b) an order for the attachment of immovable property or for the release of any immovable property from attachment, shall send a copy of such decree or order together with a memorandum describing the property, as far as may be practicable in the manner required by Section 21, to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such decree or order is situate, and such officer shall file the copy and memorandum in his Book No.1.” Section 89(5)(a) specifically speaks of the requirement of sending, for the purpose of filing, orders passed by all courts -which creates, declares, transfers, limits or extinguishes any right, title or interest to or in immovable property -in favour of any person, so as to make an entry in the Book No.1 by the Registering Officer. 7. The fact that statutory vesting takes place, when the firm was converted to a Company as per provisions of Section 368 of the Companies Act, is not disputed. 7. The fact that statutory vesting takes place, when the firm was converted to a Company as per provisions of Section 368 of the Companies Act, is not disputed. The Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur v. Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [2020 AIR (SC) 4305] took stock of Section 575 of the Companies Act (corresponding to Section 368 of the new Act) to hold that a property acquired by a promoter can be claimed by the Company after its incorporation, without any need for conveyance on account of statutory vesting. It was further held that all the properties of the firm vest with the Company statutorily, since the firm is succeeded by the Company. The question as to whether a registration number was required and as to whether stamp duty is to be paid, when a partnership firm is converted to a limited liability partnership, fell before consideration of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in M/s.Sozin Flora Pharma LLP v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another [C.W.P.No.4019/2020 dated 07.01.2021], wherein also statutory vesting has been taken stock of, to hold that no further registration is required and that stamp duty is not liable to be paid. 8. Inasmuch as the above referred legal position is settled, the only surviving issue is with respect to a provision enabling incorporation of an entry to Book No.1 under the Registration Act. As already indicated, Section 89(5) speaks of 'every court', which includes a High Court, as well. This Court, by taking stock of statutory vesting, holds that all the rights over the subject immovable property of the erstwhile firm has ceased to exist, rather extinguished; and declares that by virtue of the formation of the petitioner company, the company has become the absolute owner of the subject immovable property by statutory vesting. 9. Consequentially, this Court directs this judgment to be communicated to the 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar for the purpose of making necessary entry in Book No.1. The requirements of law in terms of Section 89(5)(a) is thus complied with, not withstanding this Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue such a direction. This Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above.