Partnership property can arise by agreement without registration; estoppel based on tenancy did not bar co-ownership relief.

Separate property may become partnership property by agreement and by being treated as part of the partnership stock; no registered conveyance is required where the parties' real intention is to bring it into common ownership. On the facts accepted, the land and structures had been treated as partnership assets, so the plaintiffs were entitled to a half-share. Estoppel based on landlord-tenant relationship did not defeat the declaratory claim because the suit sought broader relief for co-ownership title and joint possession, not merely enforcement of tenancy rights. The decree was therefore altered to recognise the plaintiffs' title to a half-share and joint possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the land and structures originally belonging to one partner had become partnership property without a registered conveyance; (ii) whether the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiffs' title in the declaratory suit.

Issue (i): Whether the land and structures originally belonging to one partner had become partnership property without a registered conveyance.

Analysis: The applicable provisions on partnership recognised that partners may combine property for the business and that properties brought into the partnership stock, bought with partnership funds, or acquired for partnership purposes become partnership assets. Those provisions do not require any particular written instrument for bringing separate property into the common stock. The decisive question is the real intention of the parties. On the findings of fact accepted below, the parties agreed that the land and structures should be treated as partnership property and they were in fact so treated. The absence of a registered deed did not prevent the property from becoming partnership property.

Conclusion: The land and the structures became partnership property, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a half-share therein.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiffs' title in the declaratory suit.

Analysis: The estoppel arising from landlord and tenant relationship operates in a suit by a landlord as such against a tenant and continues so long as that relationship subsists and possession is not restored. But the present suit was not confined to that relationship; it was framed as a broader suit for declaration of co-ownership title and joint possession. In that setting, the estoppel was not available as a complete answer to the declaratory claim.

Conclusion: The plea of estoppel was not available against the defendants in relation to the declaratory relief.

Final Conclusion: The decree was set aside and the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing title to a half-share in the property and entitlement to joint possession, along with arrears of rent as found by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate property may become partnership property by agreement and treatment as such without a registered conveyance, and the controlling test is the intention of the partners rather than any formal transfer document.

---