STATE Vs. SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S.14 of 1979 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon which gave rise to this second appeal by defendants 4 to 6 (Kerala State, District Collector. Quilon and the Sales tax officer Quilon) represents atypical example of human tendency to avoid liability under the guise of enforcement of statutory rights by resorting to dubious methods. It also reflects a tendency to find out loopholes in law by resort to mala fide methods as is the practice of cantankerous litigants.

(2.) The two plaintiffs are sisters and defendants 2 and 3 are their relations. First defendant is a registered partnership firm under the name and style M/s Vijay & Co; dealing in provisions. The business was started by the 2nd plaintiff as her proprietory concern. On 1-4-1974 it was registered as a partnership the partners being plaintiffs 1 and 2 and second defendant. On 1-4-1977 third defendant was also admitted as a partner. For the year 1978-1979 sixth defendant assessed the firm to sales tax. Since the amount was not paid, revenue recovery steps followed. Assets of plaintiffs were proceeded against. At that time the suit was filed alleging that the partnership was dissolved on 19-8-1977 and plaintiffs 1 and 2 retired from the partnership. It is said that thereafter defendants 2 and 3 alone are running the business under the same name and style. Since the assessment is for the period subsequent to the dissolution and their retirement plaintiffs alleged that they are not liable. They also pleaded that public notice and individual notice contemplated by the Indian Partnership Act were given. The suit is for a declaration that they are not liable for the claim and for consequential injunction against revenue recovery proceedings.

(3.) Defendants 2 and 3 representing the first defendant also supported the entire plaint allegations in their written statement. Defendants 4 to 6 disputed the alleged dissolution or retirement of the plaintiffs and contended