Registration is required for TDR transfer; unregistered instruments cannot support relief against transferees, but admitted partnership proceeds may be secured.

TDR, treated as a benefit arising out of immovable property, requires registration for an enforceable transfer; where the transfer documents are unregistered, no substantive relief can be founded against transferees in respect of the TDR or constructions made from it. By contrast, admitted partnership facts, including dissolution, transfer of the firm's substantial asset, and receipt of sale proceeds, justify securing the realised amount pending accounts and proceeding by way of dissolution and accounts, including production of accounts and creditor-related documents. The operative distinction is between unenforceable unregistered transfer rights against transferees and the court's power to protect admitted partnership assets for accounting on dissolution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim protection and deposit of the sale consideration realised from the TDR in the hands of the defendant, and whether a preliminary decree for dissolution and accounts could be passed on the defendant's admissions. (ii) Whether any substantive relief could be granted against the respondent-transferees in respect of the TDR and the constructions made therefrom in the absence of registration of the transfer documents.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim protection and deposit of the sale consideration realised from the TDR in the hands of the defendant, and whether a preliminary decree for dissolution and accounts could be passed on the defendant's admissions.

Analysis: The defendant admitted the partnership, its dissolution, the transfer of the only substantial asset of the firm, and receipt of sale proceeds. The Court held that the amount realised from the TDR belonged to the firm and had to be secured pending accounts, subject to the claims of bona fide creditors. Since the defendant had admitted the material facts, a judgment on admission was warranted and the matter had to proceed as a suit for dissolution and accounts, with the defendant directed to produce accounts and creditor-related documents before the Commissioner.

Conclusion: The plaintiff succeeded on this issue. The defendant was directed to deposit the admitted amount in Court, and a preliminary decree for dissolution and accounts was passed.

Issue (ii): Whether any substantive relief could be granted against the respondent-transferees in respect of the TDR and the constructions made therefrom in the absence of registration of the transfer documents.

Analysis: The Court treated TDR as an immovable property and held that its transfer required registration. The consent decree and the subsequent agreements relating to the TDR were unregistered. In consequence, no enforceable claim could be founded upon those unregistered instruments in proceedings against the respondents. The plaintiff's requests for injunction and related reliefs against the respondents therefore could not be granted.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed on this issue. Reliefs against the respondents were refused.

Final Conclusion: The chamber summons succeeded only to the extent of securing the firm's admitted TDR proceeds and directing dissolution and accounts, while all substantive reliefs against the respondents were declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of TDR, being a benefit arising out of immovable property, requires registration, and in the absence of a registered transfer no enforceable relief can be granted against transferees, though admitted partnership assets and proceeds can be secured and brought into accounts on dissolution.

---