Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal & Co.

Shah, J, A firm styled Sir Hukumchand Mannalal & Com­ pany was fonned under a deed dated July 16, 1948 to carry on the business of "managing and selling agents" of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Sir Hukumchand and his son Rajkumar Singh were two o( the five partners of the firm. They represented the interest of the Hindu undivided family of Sir Hukumchand and his sons. On March 31, 1950 the property of the Hindu undivided family wu partitioned and the interest of the family in the partnership wu taken over by a private limited company styled Sir Sarup­ chand Hukumchand Ltd. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 the Income-tax Officer grante<l. registration of the firm Wider s. 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In. 1954-55 the InCom.e-tax Officer declined to grant registratl6n. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order on the ground that two coparceners could not represent the interest of the Hindu undivided family in a partnership. The Tribunal reversed the order. They held that.Sir Hukumchand and his son Rajkumar Singh were partners in the firm on behalf of the Hindu undivided family and there was nothing in law which prevented two or more coparceners of a Hindu undivided family representing the family from entering into a partnership with a stranger or strangers. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax the follow­ ing question was referred by the Tribunal : "Whether in the facts and circlllllStances of the case the firm Hukumchand and Mannalal Company could be granted registration under s. 26A of the Act ?" The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. The CommiSsioner of Income-tax has appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court. [n Ram Laxman Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and Anr.(1) this Court observed: "A Hindu undivided family is x x x x a "person" within the meaning. of the Indian Income-tax Act : it is however not a juristic person for al! purposes, and can­ not enter into an agreement of partnership with either (I) 66 I.T.R. 613. 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971 J l S.C.R. another updivided family or individual. It is open to the manager of a joint Hindu family as representing the family to agree to become a partner with another persort. The partnership agreement in that case is bet­ ween the manager and the other person, and by the part­ nership agreement no member of the family except the manager acquires a right or interest in the partnership. The junior members of the family may make a claim against the manager for treating the income or profits received from the partnership as a joint family asset, but they cannot claim to exercise the rights of partners nor be liable .as partners." This position in law was not disputed on behalf of the Commis­ sioner. But it was urged that smce two members of a coparce­ nary represented in the firm the same beneficial interest of u Hindu undivided family, and since they were incompetent to enter into a contract inter se, the partnership agreement could not be. registw;d. There is no substance in that contention. In P. K. P. S. Pichappa Chattiar & Ors. v. Chokalingam Pillai & Ors.(') the Judicial Committee obsered, approving the obser· vations made in Mayne's Hindu Law (9th Edn.) at p. 398 to the following effect : · "Where a managing ' member of a joint family enters into a partnership with a stranger the other mem­ bers of the family do not ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the Indian con· tract Act, in such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner, but only such of its members as in fact enter into a contractual relation with the stranger : the partnership will be governed by the Act." It is clearly enunciated that one .or more members of a Hindu undivided family may enter into a contractual relation in the nature of a partnership with a stranger and they qua the stranger become partners. The view expressed by the Judicial Committee was approved by this Court in Charandas Haridas & Anr. v. Commissioner of lncome-tax, Bombay North. Kutch and Saurash­ tra, Ahmedabad & Anr. (2 ). The Indian Contract Act imposes no disability upon members of a Hindu undivided family in the matter of entering into a contract inter se or with a stranger. A member of a Hindu un­ divided family has the same liberty of contract as any other in­ dividual : it is restricted only in the manner and to the extent provided by the Indian Contract Act. Partnership is under s. 4 (1) A.T.R. (1934) P.C. 192. (2) 39 1.T.R. 202. F. L.l.T. I'. llUKUMCllAND (Shah, J.) 649 of the Partnership Act the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or 1ny of them acting for all : if such a relation exists, it will not be invalid merely because two or more of the persons who have so agreed are members of a Hindu undivided family. It is now settled law that in considering an application for registration of a fim1, the Income-tax Officer is not concerned to determine in whom the beneficial interest in the share in the partnership vests : Comrrtissioner of /11comc-tax v. A. Abdul Rahim & Co. (1); Com­ missioner of Income-tax. Madras v. Bagyalakshmi & Co.<2). h; our judgment, the High Court was right in answering the question in the affirmative. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. R.K.P.S. (I) 55 l.T.R. 051. (2) 55 l.T.R. 660. Appeal dismissed.