JUDGMENT : Above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 4 th respondent, Village Officer to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Ext.P3 possession certificate and Ext.P4 certificate of genuinity. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner company was incorporated on 16.01.1996 as per Ext.P1 certificate of incorporation and is in absolute ownership and possession of 6.7825 hectares of land of which 6.5599 hectares is comprised in Survey No.1210 and 22.26 Ares in Survey No.1232 of Peerumade Village. The property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and was assigned Thandaper No.5054 and was remitting tax for the said property till 2017-2018, as evidenced from Ext.P2 land tax receipt for the year 2017-18. The aforesaid property was part of the private property of the erstwhile Ruler of Travancore, which was sold by him to M/s.Kumari Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd as per sale deed No.252/1973 of SRO, Peermade. The total extent of property sold was 24.50 acres. M/s.Kumari Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. sold an extent of 24 acres obtained by them to Swami Athuradas as per sale deed No.252/1973 of SRO, Peermade, dated 18.11.1985. He formed a partnership by the name Travancore Regal Resorts as per the deed of partnership dated 28.11.1994 bringing as his share of capital 17 acres of land which forms part of the land described above. Hence the said property became the capital asset of the firm as per Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Later the partnership firm ‘Travancore Regal Resorts’ was incorporated as a company (the petitioner company) under the Companies Act, 1956 in accordance with the provisions under Section 565 (b) read with Section 567(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 . Thus it is contended that the assets of the partnership firm became vested with the petitioner in accordance with Section 575 of the Companies Act, 1956 . The 4 th respondent has issued Ext.P3 certificate of ownership and possession of the above-mentioned land and Ext.P4 certificate of genuinity was issued by the 3 rd respondent certifying that the property is held under a genuine patta. Land tax was also accepted. In spite of all these, after 2017-2018, the 4 th respondent declined to accept tax. The 4 th respondent has issued Ext.P3 certificate of ownership and possession of the above-mentioned land and Ext.P4 certificate of genuinity was issued by the 3 rd respondent certifying that the property is held under a genuine patta. Land tax was also accepted. In spite of all these, after 2017-2018, the 4 th respondent declined to accept tax. Therefore representations were submitted by the petitioner before various authorities and ultimately land revenue commissioner, the additional respondent No.5 has called for a report and consequently, the 2 nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer has submitted Ext.P5 report. Though Ext.P5 report confirms the derivation of title of the property of the petitioner company and payment of land tax by the petitioner, a doubt was expressed as to the validity of the vesting of the property in the petitioner company in the absence of transfer of property by way of a sale deed. Petitioner would contend that such a doubt was raised only due to non-appreciation of Section 575 of the Companies Act. Though Exts.P6 and P7 complaints were filed, the authorities refused to accept tax. The petitioner would contend that it is a ‘landholder’ as defined in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and it has a statutory liability to pay tax and that there is a corresponding statutory liability on the State to accept tax. The denial of receipt of tax is done in an arbitrary manner, that too without resorting to any procedure established by law. Petitioner also relies on Exts.P9 to P11 documents to prove the derivation of title and contends that the said derivation of title of the aforesaid property of the petitioner company has not been challenged or disputed by any of the prior owners or anyone claiming under them. 3. A statement has been filed by the 2 nd respondent mainly contending that though the property was transferred to one Swamy Athuradas as per Sale Deed No.2124/85 of Peerumade Sub Registrar Office, there are no legally valid documents produced by the petitioner to show that it has obtained 17 acres of land from Swmay Athuradas and the derivation of property as claimed by the petitioner is not legally sustainable and the same is against the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1996. Issuance of the Thandaper Account number to the petitioner is irregular. Issuance of the Thandaper Account number to the petitioner is irregular. In the absence of any evidence to prove the title of the property, the petitioner has no legal right to approach this Court seeking a direction to the authorities to receive the basic tax. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the additional respondent No.5 where it is admitted that the Thahsildar has certified that the property in question is a genuine patta land and not included in the alienated lands of tribal people. It is also admitted that mutation was effected in the name of the petitioner and tax was received till 2017-2018. Based on Ext.P5 report it is contended that the property was originally held by Maharaja of Travancore and proceedings were initiated against the said property by the Land Board and the remaining property after surrender having an extent of 24.50 acres was sold by the Maharaja to M/s Kumari Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. as per Sale deed No.252/73 of SRO Peerumade. The said property was transferred to one Swamy Athuradas as per Sale deed No.2124/85 of SRO Peerumade and Thandaper Account No.2826 was created in the name of Swamy Athuradas. Swamy Athuradas formed a partnership by the name ‘Travancore Regal Resorts’ and brought in 17 acres of land out of these 24 acres to the stock of the partnership firm valuing the same at Rs.84 lakhs. On 30.05.1995, Swamy Athuradas retired from the partnership after receipt of Rs.84 Lakhs as the value of the land which was brought to the joint stock of the partnership firm and thereafter the firm retained the said property as its stock. Swamy Athuradas has not executed or registered any conveyance deed in favour of the partnership firm or the partners and they have not obtained title of the aforesaid property. Subsequently, on 16.01.1996, the remaining partners of the aforesaid partnership firm registered a company as ‘Travancore Regal Resorts’ as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 . Thereafter, using the registration of the company and the certificate of incorporation, the petitioner company obtained mutation of the above 17 acres of property in its name. It is submitted that the company has not obtained any title to the property through a registered deed from Swamy Athuradas. Thereafter, using the registration of the company and the certificate of incorporation, the petitioner company obtained mutation of the above 17 acres of property in its name. It is submitted that the company has not obtained any title to the property through a registered deed from Swamy Athuradas. Reliance was placed on the judgment in State of Kerala and Others v. V.D. Vincent , 2018 (3) KLT 677 , and contended that title of immovable property above Rs.100/- in value can be conveyed only by a registered instrument and any person can get the property mutated only by such registered conveyance and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 6. Admittedly, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and thandaper No.5054 was assigned and tax was received till 2017-18. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent and the counter affidavit filed by additional respondent No.5, these aspects have not been disputed but a contention has been taken that the mutation effected is irregular. It is also not in dispute that though a stand has been taken by the official respondents that mutation effected in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property is irregular, no steps have been taken by the official respondents to cancel the mutation. In light of the above, this writ petition could have been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the 4 th respondent to accept tax in respect of the subject property for which tax has been received till 2017-18 as the mutation has not been cancelled till date. Since a legal contention was raised in the statement and counter affidavit filed by the official respondents that there is no valid document to show the transfer of title of the subject property either to the partnership firm, Travancore Regal Resorts or to the petitioner company, the mutation effected is bad and tax cannot be accepted, and a reliance is placed on the judgment of V.D. Vincent ’s case cited supra, this Court is proceeding to consider the legal contentions also. Based on Ext.P11, an application in Form No.37 submitted by the partnership firm, Travancore Regal Resorts, for registration of a limited company under the Companies Act 1956, the petitioner company was incorporated as evidenced from Ext.P1 certificate of incorporation. Based on Ext.P11, an application in Form No.37 submitted by the partnership firm, Travancore Regal Resorts, for registration of a limited company under the Companies Act 1956, the petitioner company was incorporated as evidenced from Ext.P1 certificate of incorporation. Even going by the stand of the additional respondent No.5, the transfer of title till it reached the hands of Swamy Athuradas as per sale deed No.2124 of 1985 of SRO Peerumade and the assignment of Thandaper No.2826 in the name of Swamy Athuradas is not disputed by the official respondents. The only dispute raised by the Government is regarding the transfer of 17 acres of land obtained by Swamy Athuradas to the partnership firm and consequently to the petitioner company after its incorporation. As contended by the petitioner, a partnership firm was constituted by Swamy Athuradas and 17 acres of land out of 24 acres obtained by Swamy Athuradas as per sale deed No.2124 of 1985 of SRO Peerumade was included in the joint stock of the partnership firm, fixing the value of the property as Rs.84 lakhs and the said Swamy Athuradas retired from the partnership after receiving Rs.84 lakhs being the value of the 17 acres of land included in the joint stock of the partnership firm. Later the remaining partners of the aforementioned partnership firm registered the petitioner company and contended that on registration, the property of the partnership firm automatically gets transferred as the assets of the company as per Section 575 of the Companies Act, 1956 . The contention of the official respondents is that there is no registered documents showing conveyance of the property by Swamy Athuradas to the partnership firm and consequent transfer of the property of the partnership firm to the petitioner company, and any transfer of an immovable property above Rs.100/- in value can be conveyed only by a registered instrument and any person could get the property mutated only on the basis of such registered conveyance going by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 . 7. Admittedly there is no registered conveyance in the particular transfer of assets, first to the partnership firm and later to the petitioner company. The court has to consider first whether such transfer of asset is valid or not. 7. Admittedly there is no registered conveyance in the particular transfer of assets, first to the partnership firm and later to the petitioner company. The court has to consider first whether such transfer of asset is valid or not. A similar issue was considered by this Court in George v. George , 2010 (2) KLT 692 and held in paragraph 8 as follows:- “8. It is within the power of partners to bring their individual property, moveable or immovable into the partnership and convert it into the common stock either at the time of formation of the partnership or during the continuance of that partnership and for the said purpose it is not necessary that there must be a written instrument. What is relevant is the intention of partners which could be proved even by a course of conduct. If the partners intended that property which hitherto was individual property of the partners be brought into the partnership as its asset so that individual right of partners qua partners over the property is lost and it becomes shared rights of the partners and the property is treated as such, then such property becomes partnership property as understood in S.14 of the Act. Even if such conversion is made by a written instrument it does not require compulsory registration as an instrument under S.17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. When some of the partners relinquish their interest qua partners in moveable or immovable property of the partnership in favour of the remaining partners also, a written instrument registered or otherwise is not necessary, what is relevant being the intention of the partners and that the property is treated as such proved by some evidence including a course of conduct.” (underline supplied) This Court, after considering the law on the point, has held that it is within the powers of the partners to bring their individual property, movable or immovable, into the partnership and convert it to the common stock of the partnership firm and it is not necessary that there should be a written instrument and even if there is a written instrument, it does not require compulsory registration as an instrument under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 . This Court in Park Residency v. State of Kerala , 2013 (1) KHC 767 , considered a similar issue in which a partnership firm was reconstituted and thereafter when the parties approached the Tahsildar for effecting mutation in the name of the reconstituted partnership firm, the same was declined as reconstitution of a partnership firm will not come within the purview of Transfer of Registry Rules. Rejecting the said contention this Court held in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Park Residency ’s case cited supra as follows:- “13. Of course, the plain terms of the Transfer of Registry Rules do not envisage a situation like this, where the properties of the partnership after reconstitution is statutorily vested in the reconstituted partnership under a new name. There are no other procedures prescribed apart from the Transfer of Registry Rules to effect mutation. When we consider the effect of S.14 of the Partnership Act, it can be seen that the property herein belongs to the reconstituted partnership firm. It is by operation of law. All the legal formalities before the Registrar of Firms have been completed also. In a matter like this, when the firm is reconstituted, there need not be a registered document for the properties to be held in the name of the partnership. Going by the decision of this Court in George's case, 2010 (2) KHC 674 : 2010 (2) KLT 692 : ILR 2010 (2) Ker. 517 : 2010 (2) KLJ 298 , registration is required only in a case where the retired partners convey their individual immovable property to the partnership or the continuing partners in their individual capacity. Such is not the case here. Therein, this Court had also held that even in the case of conversion of individual partner's property into that of the partnership or vice versa, it is only the intention of the parties which is relevant and no document registered or otherwise, is necessary. This will also support the case of the petitioner herein that no registered document is required for earmarking the properties owned by M/s. Maria Residency in the name of M/s. Park Residency. The deed of amendment itself contains various clauses in that regard which brings out the intention of the parties and the same will therefore be sufficient. 14. This will also support the case of the petitioner herein that no registered document is required for earmarking the properties owned by M/s. Maria Residency in the name of M/s. Park Residency. The deed of amendment itself contains various clauses in that regard which brings out the intention of the parties and the same will therefore be sufficient. 14. In a matter like this, where it requires the transfer of registry in a situation like this, the absence of a specific provision under the Transfer of Registry Rules need not deter the authorities from accepting the application and acting upon it. There is no prohibition under the rules also. By the operation of law, the firm under a new name continues to be the owner of the immovable properties. Therefore, the owner has got every right to get mutation of the properties in its name. Otherwise, the petitioner will be left out without any remedies in spite of the fact that the firm has been reconstituted and the property also stands in its name.” (underline supplied) In the present case, the property of Swamy Athuradas after the formation of the partnership firm was converted into the common stock of the partnership firm and therefore, going by the judgment in George ’s and Park Residency ’s cases cited supra, such transfer of assets of immovable property is perfectly legal and valid instrument. Therefore, the contention of the official respondents that there is no registered conveyance deed executed by Swamy Athuradas in favour of the partnership firm and, therefore, the partners or the partnership firm have not obtained title of the aforesaid property is only to be rejected. 8. Next question to be considered is the registration of partnership firm as a company as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 . Based on Ext.P11 request made before the Registrar of Companies which is an application for registration of a limited company, which was originally a partnership firm by name, Travancore Regal Resorts, a company was incorporated as evident from Ext.P1 certificate of incorporation. The contention of the petitioner is that on such incorporation all the assets of the partnership firm will pass to and vest in the company as incorporated as per Ext.P1. The contention of the petitioner is that on such incorporation all the assets of the partnership firm will pass to and vest in the company as incorporated as per Ext.P1. On the contrary the contention of the official respondents is that for such transfer of an immovable property to the incorporated company as per Ext.P1 there should be a registered deed as title of an immovable property above Rs.100/- in value can be conveyed only by a registered instrument. Section 565 of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with companies capable of being registered. Section 565 reads as follows:- “ 565. Section 565 of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with companies capable of being registered. Section 565 reads as follows:- “ 565. Companies capable of being registered .- (1) With the exceptions and subject to the provisions contained in this section - (a) any company consisting of seven or more members, which was in existence on the first day of May, 1882, including any company registered under Act No. 19 of 1857 and Act No. 7 of 1860 or either of them or under any laws or law in force in a Part B State, corresponding to those Acts or either of them; and (b) any company formed after the date aforesaid, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in pursuance of any Act of Parliament other than this Act or of any other Indian law (including a law in force in a Part B State), or of any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or Letters Patent in force in India, or being otherwise duly constituted according to law, and consisting of seven or more members, may at any time register under this Act as an unlimited company, or as a company limited by shares, or as a company limited by guarantee; and the registration shall not be invalid by reason only that it has taken place with a view to the company's being wound up: Provided that - (i) a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882 (6 of 1882) or under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913), shall not register in pursuance of this section; (ii) a company having the liability of its members limited by any Act of Parliament other than this Act or by any other Indian law (including a law in force in a Part B State), or by any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or Letters Patent in force in India, and not being a joint-stock company as defined in section 566, shall not register in pursuance of this section; (iii) a company having the liability of its members limited by any Act of Parliament other than this Act or by any other Indian law (including a law in force in a Part B State), or any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or Letters Patent in force in India, shall not register in pursuance of this section as an unlimited company or as a company limited by guarantee; (iv) a company that is not a joint-stock company as defined in section 566 shall not register in pursuance of this section as a company limited by shares; (v) a company shall not register in pursuance of this section without the assent of a majority of such of its members as are present in person, or where proxies are allowed, by proxy, at a general meeting summoned for the purpose; (vi) where a company not having the liability of its members limited by any Act of Parliament or any other Indian law (including a law in force in a Part B State) or by any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or Letters Patent in force in India, is about to register as a limited company, the majority required to assent as aforesaid shall consist of not less than three-fourths of the members present in person, or where proxies are allowed, by proxy, at the meeting; (vii) where a company is about to register as a company limited by guarantee, the assent to its being so registered shall be accompanied by a resolution declaring that each member undertakes to contribute to the assets of the company, in the event of its being wound up while he is a member, or within one year after he ceases to be a member, for payment of the debts and liabilities of the company or of such debts and liabilities as may have been contracted before he ceases to be a member, and of the costs, charges and expenses of winding up, and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves, such amount as may be required, not exceeding a specified amount. (2) In computing any majority required for the purposes of sub-section (1) when a poll is demanded, regard shall be had to the number of votes to which each member is entitled according to the regulations of the company. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any company the registered office whereof at the commencement of this Act is in Burma, Aden or Pakistan.” Section 575 of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with the vesting of property on registration, which reads as follows: “ 575. Vesting of property on registration.- All property, movable and immovable (including actionable claims), belonging to or vested in a company at the date of its registration in pursuance of this Part, shall, on such registration, pass to and vest in the company as incorporated under this Act for all the estate and interest of the company therein.” The question as to whether a partnership firm could be registered as a company and whether the property of a partnership firm vests in the company when the firm is registered as per the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 came up for consideration of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vali Pattabhirama Rao and Another v. Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory (P.) Ltd and Others, 1984 KHC 1324 . The relevant provision in the Indian Companies Act, 1913 regarding the transfer of assets is Section 263, which corresponds to Section 575 of the Companies Act, 1956 . The Court held that the word ‘company’ occurring in Section 263 is not a company registered under the Act and it is used in the sense of group, assembly or association of persons. The Andhra Pradesh High Court made reference to Section 565 of the Companies Act, 1956 , the Act applicable in the present case and held that a partnership can be treated as a company for the purpose of the Companies Act. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “18. We have already held that the partnership firm in which the original lessee is a partner was legally constituted, and the firm continues to be lawful and the properties belonging to all the partners have become the properties of the firm. The question is whether the property of the said firm had vested in the first defendant company when the firm was registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1913. The question is whether the property of the said firm had vested in the first defendant company when the firm was registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1913. For that it is necessary to notice the terms of S.263 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 that corresponds to S.575 of the present Companies Act 1956. S.263 runs as follows - "S.263. All property, movable and immovable, including all interests and rights in, to and out of property, movable, and immovable, and including obligations and actionable claims as may belong to or be vested in a company at the date of its registration in pursuance of this Part, shall, on registration, pass to and vest in the company as incorporated under this Act for all the estate and interest of the company therein." The word 'Company' occurring in S.263 is not a company registered under the Act. It is used in the sense of group, assembly or association of persons. In fact throughout the Act the word 'company' was used in several sections in the general sense of association of persons. In fact S.11 of present Companies Act (S.4 of previous Act) itself which enacted the prohibition of association exceeding certain members for carrying on trade starts with saying that no company or association or partnership consisting of more than ten members shall be formed. S.253 of the previous Act corresponds to S.565 of the present Act. S.565 (1) (b) of present Act corresponds to S.253 (1) (ii) of 1913 Act, which permits any company otherwise duly constituted according to law consisting of 7 or more members to be registered as a company. A partnership must be one such. This is made clear by the provisions of S.255 of 1913 Act (present Act S.567) and S.256 of 1913 Act (present Act S.568) whereunder a deed of partnership has to be filed before the Registrar before seeking the registration. Hence a partnership which was treated as a company for the purpose of the Companies Act can be registered under Part 8 of the previous Act (Part 9 of present Act) and the vesting is provided by S.263 (S.575 of present Act). The provision is mandatory and there will be statutory vesting in the corporation so incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. The provision is mandatory and there will be statutory vesting in the corporation so incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. The Registrar is bound to give a certificate of registration under S.262 (present S.574) which is a conclusive proof of incorporation. (Vide S.35 of the present Act that corresponds to S.24 of the previous Act). Hence it is clear that no conveyance is necessary when the partnership is converted and registered as a company. However it is not possible to acquire such title statutorily under this section if the previous firm purports to convey title to the company in which event a separate deed of conveyance is necessary. Thus we hold that if the constitution of the partnership firm is changed into that of a company by registering it under thus Part 9 of present Act (Part 8 of previous Act) there shall be statutory vesting of title of all the property of the previous firm in the newly incorporated company without any need of a separate conveyance. A similar view was taken in Ramasundari Ray v. Syamendra Lal Ray, ILR (1947) 2 Cal 1. D. W. 2 deposed that in 1920 the partnership was converted into a private limited company and filed the Articles of Association Ex. B - 54. This evidence stood un - contradicted. In fact the plaintiffs and their predecessors - in - title treated the 1st defendant as successor - in - interest of the previous firm and hence we are of the opinion that the leasehold interest that has become firm's property by virtue of the original lessee bringing into the firm has vested in the 1st defendant company after its registration. ” (underline supplied) Following the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vali Pattabhirama Rao ’s case cited supra, the Bombay High Court in Salim Akbarali Nangi v. Union of India and Others , 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1098 referring to Section 565 of the Companies Act, 1956 , especially the wording “or being otherwise duly constituted according to law” obtaining in sub-clause (b) of Section 565 (1) held that even a co-operative society will come under the purview of the word company. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:- “28. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:- “28. It is thus clear that for registration under Part IX, it must be a company not registered under the Companies Act, or any of earlier Companies Act. The definition of company under section 3 of the Companies Act expressly provides that the definition will apply, where the context so requires, to a company formed or registered under the Companies Act or “existing company” meaning thereby a company formed or registered under the previous Companies Acts. Respondent No.11 is a joint stock company within the meaning of section 566 which on plain reading of section requires that it has a permanent paid-up or nominal share capital of fixed amount; that capital is divided into shares of fixed amount; and it is formed on the principle of having formed for its members and holders of those shares and no other persons. In our view, respondent No. 10 satisfied all the above conditions and accordingly is a joint stock company within the meaning of section 566, on the date of application to the Registrar of companies for the purpose of incorporation under Part IX. From the plain reading of sections 565 and 566 it is clear that the expression "company" in Part IX is used in the sense of a group, assembly or association of persons which has been incorporated under the Act or Parliament or otherwise duly constituted according to law and consisting of seven or more members. The word "company" occurring in section 566 is not a "company" registered under the Companies Act. In our view it may include within its purview a Co-operative society registered under the Societies Act or Multi-State Act. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in (Vali Pattabhiram Rao v. Sri Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory (P.) Ltd.), A.I.R. 1984 Andhra Pradesh 176 relied upon by Mr. Chagla while dealing with somewhat similar situation held that the word "company" used in section 565 of the Companies Act, corresponding to section 263 of the Companies Act, 1913, includes within its purview a partnership. Thus, it was held that the word "company" in this context could denote a partnership firm. Chagla while dealing with somewhat similar situation held that the word "company" used in section 565 of the Companies Act, corresponding to section 263 of the Companies Act, 1913, includes within its purview a partnership. Thus, it was held that the word "company" in this context could denote a partnership firm. A partnership firm could thus be registered under Part IX of the Companies Act and once it was so registered, there could be statutory vesting of title of the property of the firm in the newly incorporated company. .....................” (underline supplied) Such judicial declaration was necessitated as the word partnership firm was not specifically mentioned in the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and earlier Companies Act which were referred to in the said judgments. While we refer to the Companies Act, 2013, the relevant provision which deals with companies capable of being registered is Section 366 and Clause (1) of Section 366 defines ‘Company’ for the purpose of Part I of the Companies Act, 2013 and provides that the word “company’ includes a partnership firm also. Section 366(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 reads as follows: “ 366. Companies capable of being registered .—(1) For the purposes of this Part, the word “company” includes any partnership firm, limited liability partnership, cooperative society, society or any other business entity formed under any other law for the time being in force which applies for registration under this Part.” In the light of the above discussion, it is without any doubt that even a partnership firm is entitled for being registered as provided in Section 565 of the Companies Act, 1956 . 9. The question now to be considered is the legal impact of the transfer of assets of the partnership on the same being registered as a company as per the provisions of Section 565 of the Companies Act, 1956 . Section 575 of the Act 1956 deals with the vesting of the property on registration which specifically mandates that all properties movable and immovable belonging to or vested in a company at the date of its registration shall on such registration pass to and vest in the company as incorporated under the Act for all the estates and interest in the company therein. So going by Section 575 , its a case of automatic transfer and vesting of the assets of the partnership firm on being registered as a company as per the provisions of Section 565 of the Act 1956. This Court in Kims Health Executive Leisure Pvt Ltd (M/s) v. Special Officer Attipra Village, 2024 (4) KHC 291 while referring to Section 368 of the Companies Act, 2013 (corresponding to Section 575 of the Companies Act, 1956 ) held that it is a case of automatic vesting of all properties movable and immovable in the name of the company on registration and directed change of name of the petitioner company in the revenue records in tune with the certificate of registration issued as per the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the mutation effected in the name of the petitioner company is irregular as the transfer of the immovable property to the name of the newly registered company was not by way of a registered deed cannot be accepted since on registration as per the provisions of Section 565 of the Companies Act 1956, respondents 3 and 4 were legally bound to effect a transfer of registry of the properties in the name of the registered company for which, Ext.P1 certificate of incorporation was issued and to accept tax, which has been correctly done by respondents 3 and 4. 10. The learned Government Pleader relying on the judgment in V.D. Vincent ’s case cited supra submits that the property of a firm could be transferred only by a registered deed. In V.D. Vincent ’s case, the court was dealing with a case where certain properties were brought in by partners of a partnership firm into the common stock of a firm and later the firm was dissolved and the properties were distributed among the partners and in the process, the properties brought in by the partners at the time of formation of the partnership firm have been exchanged among the partners and when the partners approached the revenue authorities seeking transfer of the registry of the property obtained by them consequent to dissolution of the firm, in their names, the same was refused stating that there was no registered document executed in their favour evidencing a transfer of title. The Court held that if the property which was originally brought into the partnership by a particular partner had upon dissolution of the firm, gone back to the same partner, no registration was required in terms of the Registration Act, but in the particular case, after dissolution, the property which was brought in by a particular partner to the joint stock of the partnership is transferred to another partner, the same could be done only by way of a registered deed. I am afraid the decision in V.D. Vincent ’s case cited supra cannot apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as this Court in V.D. Vincent ’s case was dealing with a totally different factual situation. Therefore the above writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the 4 th respondent to accept land tax from the petitioner from 2018-19 onwards for their property regarding which Ext.P3 possession certificate and Ext.P4 certificate of genuinity were issued, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.