SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 265

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Commissioner of Income-tax. West Bengal, Calcutta. Appellant
Versus
 Juggilal Kamalapat, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1966, dated 7-10-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate, (M/s. A. N. Kirpal anti R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Appellant: Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. P. Maheshwar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.N.KIRPAL, B.P.MAHESHVARI, R.N.SACH, S.T.DESAI

Headnote:ESSENTIALS OF PARTNERSHIP - PARTNERS RELINQUISHING INTEREST IN MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS IN FAVOUR OF NEW PARTNERS BY DOCUMENT WITHOUT REGISTERING IT — HELD DEED DID NOT REQUIRE REGISTRATION AND ASSUMING IT DID IT WAS STILL VALID IN RESPECT OF MOVABLE PROPERTIES - Deed of relinquishment of gift and deed or partition

       

       – the deed of relinquishment could, at best, be held to be invalid as it affected the immovable properties included in the assets of the firm, but to the extent that it purported to transfer movable assets of the firm the document would remain valid. A deed of relinquishment is in the nature of the deed of gift, where the previous properties dealt with are always separable, and the invalidity of the deed of gift in respect of one item cannot affect its validity in respect of another. A deed of relinqushment, or a deed of gift, differs from a deed of partition in which it is not possible to hold that the partition is valid in respect of some properties and not in respect of others, because rights of persons being partitioned are adjusted with reference to the properties subject to partition as a whole. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Juggilal Kamlapat, AIR 1967 SC 401 = 1967(1) SCR 784 = 1967(1) SCJ 177 = 63 ITR 292 = 1967(2) SCWR 283, the deed of relinquishment was held to be valid at least in respect of movable properties and the partnership seeking registration.

       

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Commissioner of Income-tax v. Juggilal Kamalapat:

  • Case Background: The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax against a High Court order that upheld the registration of the firm "Juggilal Kamalapat" under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1943-44. (!) (!)
  • Facts of the Partnership: Originally, three Singhania brothers carried on business in the name of Juggilal Kamalapat. In 1939, they admitted Jhabbarmal Saraf as a partner. In 1942, the brothers executed a trust deed (Kamla Town Trust) and subsequently a Deed of Relinquishment transferring their rights in the firm's assets to Jhabbarmal Saraf and the Trust. A new partnership deed was executed between Jhabbarmal Saraf and the Trust. (!)
  • Grounds for Rejection: The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the registration. The primary ground upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was that the Deed of Relinquishment was unregistered and therefore could not legally transfer rights to immovable properties owned by the firm. The Tribunal argued that since immovable properties could not be legally transferred, the entire business assets could not be considered transferred. (!) [1000128480002]
  • Procedural History: The case was referred to the Calcutta High Court. The High Court initially sent the case back to the Tribunal for a supplementary statement of facts regarding whether the firm was "genuine." After further proceedings, the High Court concluded that the firm legally came into existence and should be registered. (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Supreme Court's View on "Genuine Firm": The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the question of whether the firm was a "genuine firm" as a question of fact. The Court ruled that the existence of a firm in fact is a question for the Tribunal (final), while the existence in law is a question for the High Court. The Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that the firm did exist in fact. [1000128480005][1000128480006]
  • Validity of Deed of Relinquishment: The Supreme Court held that a Deed of Relinquishment (similar to a deed of gift) executed by partners regarding their share in a firm does not require registration under the Registration Act, even if the firm owns immovable properties. [1000128480008][1000128480010]
  • Separability of Assets: Even if registration were required, the Court reasoned that a deed of relinquishment is in the nature of a gift where properties are separable. Therefore, the invalidity of the deed regarding immovable properties (due to lack of registration) would not affect its validity regarding movable properties. [1000128480011]
  • Legal Precedent: The Court relied on the principle that the interest of a partner in partnership assets is considered movable property under O. 21 R. 49 of the Civil Procedure Code, regardless of whether the firm holds immovable assets. [1000128480008][1000128480009]
  • Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the partnership between the Kamla Town Trust and Jhabbarmal Saraf was valid in law and entitled to registration. (!) (!)

Judgment

BHARGAVA, J. : This appeal arises out of proceedings for registration of the firm, Juggilal Kamalapat, Calcutta, under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 1943-44. Prior to this assessment year, the three Singhania brothers, Sir Padampat Singhania. Kamlapat Singhania and Lakshmipat Singhania. were carrying on a hosiery business in the name of Messrs. Juggilal Kamalapat with Head Office at Kanpur and a branch at Calcutta. On November as 1939, these three brothers executed a deed of partnership, by which one Jhabbarmal Saraf was taken in as a partner, and under this deed, all the four partners had equal shares. On October 27, 1941, the three brothers executed a trust deed known as the Kamla Town Trust, the principal object of which was the welfare of the employees of Juggilal Kamalapat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Under this deed, the three brothers became the first trustees. On December 2, 1942, a Deed of Relinquishment was executed by the three brothels relinquishing their rights and claims to all the properties and assets of the firm, Juggilal Kamalapat, in favour of Jhabbarmal Saraf and of themselves in the capacity of the three first trustees of the Kamla Town Trust. This relinquishment deed purported to recognise an earlier oral relinquishment which was stated as having been operative with effect from March 26, 1942. On December 1, 1942, a Partnership Deed was executed between Jhabbarmal Saraf and the three trustees, by which they purported to constitute a partnership firm taking effect from March 27, 1942, the two partners in the firm being Jhabbarmal Saraf and the Kamla Town Trust represented by these three trustees. The shares of the two partners in this partnership were: Kamla Town Trust-As. 0-12-0, and Jhabbarmal Saraf- As. 0-4-0. The firm, Juggilal Kamalapat, which had been carrying on the business of hosiery, owned both movable and immovable properties at Belur near Calcutta. The immovable properties consisted of lands and buildings constructed for the use of the factory for manufacturing hosiery, and they were shown in their balance-sheet as properties belonging to the firm. The firm had also been showing expenses incurred for maintaining or making additions or alterations to these buildings in their accounts and had been claiming depreciation in respect of them. It was in these circumstances that the new partnership purporting to consist of the Kamla Town Trust and Jhabbarmal Saraf, applied for registration under S. 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1943-44.

2. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim and, in doing so, also took notice of the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000 had been introduced into this partnership firm by the Trust. The reason given by the Income-tax Officer for not accepting the registration need not be mentioned here, because that reason was not accepted by the Tribunal and was not urged before the High Court or before this Court on behalf of the Commissioner. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer for reasons given by him which were different from those given by the Income-tax Officer. Those reasons are again immaterial, because those reasons were not accepted by the Tribunal or the High Court and have not been relied upon before us.

3. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the application for registration under S. 26A on the main ground that the Relinquishment Deed, dated 2nd December 1942, being an unregistered document, could not legally transfer rights and title to the immovable owned by the firm in favour of the Kamla Town Trust, and that the transfer of the immovable properties being thus legally ineffective and they being not separable from the other business assets, the entire business of the firm was not legally transferred in favour of the Kamla Town Trust. Two other reasons were also given that the constitution of the new firm w


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top