Judgment

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.: This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the High Court of Mysore holding that the document relied upon by the appellant does not create a relation of partnership between the appellant M. P. Davis and his brother P. W. Davis. It appears that prior to the assessment year 1952-53 the appellant who was the registered owner of the Kaimabetta Coffee Estate was assessed as an individual; but for the assessment year 1952-53 he claimed a change of status and pleaded that he and his brother had agreed to become partners under a partnership deed (Ex. 12) and asked for the registration of the said firm under S. 26 of the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act (I of 1951). According to the appellant the partnership in question has been constituted or the purposes inter alia of the joint working of the said estate as also for transacting generally the business or businesses of coffee, citrus and pepper and other businesses, as specified in the document. The relevant provisions of the Coorg Act correspond to the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act; S. 26 of the said Act provides for the registration of firms for the purpose of the Act. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coorg, refused to register the firm on the ground that the document did not create the relationship of partners between the two executants of the document and that the appellant s brother was no more than his servant under the said document. This order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Coorg. The appellant then applied to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Coorg, under S. 54(2) of the Act to draw up and refer his case to the Mysore High Court. The question thus referred to the High Court was

"whether, upon the materials produced by the assessee, the agricultural Income-tax officer is justified in rejecting the deed of partnership as not creating the relation of partnership."

This question has been answered by the High Court against the appellant. The appellant then applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court. That is how the appeal as been admitted and the only question which we have to decide is whether the document has created a partnership.

2. It is necessary to refer to certain facts before considering the terms of the purported partnership deed for as provided in S. 6 of the Partnership Act,

"In determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm. . . . . . regard shall be bad to the real relation between the parties, as shown by all relevant facts taken together."

Now it appears that before, the deed was executed the appellants estate was being managed by his brothers as his agent; and this was on the basis of principal and agent or master and servant. In the assessment proceedings under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act for the year 1951-52 P. W. Davis appeared as the agent of the appellant. Similarly, for the assessment year 1952-53 a claim for change of status was made by P. W. Davis who produced the partnership deed. That is why the question which the tax authorities considered was whether the execution of the document really brought about any change in the relationship between the two brothers. They held that despite the document the relations between the two brothers continued the same as before and the High Court has agreed with this view. This view receives some support from two other facts which have been found by the tax authorities. Even after change of status was pleaded for the assessment year 1952-53, "the appellant claimed loss of the previous year and full expenses of the accounting year against what he actually received during the accounting year 1951-52"; and so far as the books of accounts were concerned "they did not show change in the management of the estate in spite of the agreement. These are findings of fact and though, in the absence of the account books and the other relevant material, it would be difficult for us to a