The liability of minor partners in a partnership firm for tax arrears under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and Rules and the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, particularly Section 30(5), Section 30(7), and Section 35 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, was the central legal point established in the given judgment.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. BHATTI, J.

1. The State of Kerala (for short 'the State') is the appellant in the instant Writ Appeals and the Regular Second Appeal. Lekshmi Vasanth and J Raj Mohan Pillai are the contesting respondents (for short, 'L.V' and 'R M P' respectively).

2. The State, aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No.5783 of 2014; dated 29.06.2016 in W.P. (C) No.9021 of 2015 and dated 20.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No.32715 of 2014 and the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2009 and in A.S No.153 of 2004 on the file of Second Additional District Judges Court, Kollam, filed the appeals, in the order referred to above.

3. The issues for consideration have bearing on the provisions in The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and Rules (for short 'the RR Act and Rules' ) and The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (For short 'Act 1932'.)

4. The circumstances necessary for disposing of these matters are noted as under:

W.P.(C) No. 5783 of 2014 was filed by 'L V' for writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Kollam and his Subordinate Officers to accept tax payable on the property of the 'L V' comprised in 37 cents equivalent to 14 Ares 94 square meters in Survey No.244 of Eravipuram Village covered by Block No.145 and simultaneously direct respondents to strike off all entries and obliterate attachment of property effected for alleged recovery of sales tax arrears of M/s.Malabar Cashew Nuts and Allied Products, a partnership Firm, (for short 'the Firm'), entered in the revenue books. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 09.06.2016 and hence, W.A No.1521 of 2017 at the instance of the State.

4.1 W.P(C). No.9021 of 2015 was filed by 'R M P' praying writ of ceritiorari and quash Ext.P5 05.11.2012 as illegal and unconstitutional. On 29.06.2016, the writ petition was allowed and hence W.A No.1536 of 2017 at the instance of the State.

4.2 W.P(C) No.32715 of 2014 was filed by 'L V' for the relief of a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading up to and inclusive of Exts.P11 to 13, and to quash Exts.P11 to 13 as grossly illegal and unconstitutional. On 20.09.2016 the writ petition was allowed; and the State, aggrieved thereby, filed W.A No.1551 of 2017.

4.3 O.S No.35/1999 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court of Kollam was filed by 'L V' for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction against the State, the Tahsildar and the Village Officer. The plaint schedule consists of the property and building lying in Sy.No.244 of Eravipuram Village (Resurvey No.145/19). The learned trial judge on 29.06.2004, dismissed O.S. No.35/1999. 'L V' filed A.S No.153 of 2004 before the II Additional District Judge, Kollam and the learned Appellate Judge vide judgment dated 10.09.2009 allowed the appeal as prayed for. Hence, RSA No.21 of 2016 has been filed by the State with an application to condone the delay of 2197 days in presenting the RSA No.21 of 2016.

5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.C.E Unnikrishnan for the State, the learned Advocates Mr.Harish Gopinath and Mr.Harishankar Menon for Lakshmi Vasanth and Raj Mohan Pillai respectively.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have referred to the admitted chronology of dates and events, and have treated W.A No.1536/2017 as the lead writ appeal, and the outcome of W.A. No.1536/2017 would, as a natural corollary, decide the outcome of other two writ appeals and RSA. Before adverting to the circumstances set out in WA No.1536 of 2017 [W.P.(C) No.9021 of 2015], a few undisputed and admitted circumstances, as a prelude to the present litigation, are adverted to.

7. M/s. Malabar Cashew Nuts and Allied Products is a partnership firm registered under Act 1932. The Firm was served orders of assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Firm committed default and fell in arrears of the demand raised by the Department/State. Finally, steps to recover the tax arrears under the RR Act and Rules were initiated, by the State through the District Collector. A