BRUNDABAN CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff. It arises out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is not personally liable to pay the sales-tax dues of the partnership firm, consisting of three partners, of whom the plaintiff's father was one, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the articles mentioned in the schedule of plaint; and for their return to the plaintiff.

(2.) PLAINTIFF's case, in short, is this : The joint family comprising of the plaintiff, his brother, and his father disrupted on 31-12-51, and there was a partition by metes and bounds of all the joint-family-properties. A partition-deed was drawn up and registered on 4-2-52 in evidence of such partition. The plaintiff further received a cash of Rs. three thousand and left the house, and ultimately became a Babajee. His brother also cut off all connections with him and left the village, and shifted to Rambha where he settled down. There was a partnership firm at Purushottampur whose firm name was Mangulu Sahu and Damodar Panda. This firm was registered in the sales-tax department in 1947, its sales-tax registration number being 836. In 1959, the sales-tax department got some evidence that the plaintiff's father was a partner of the firm, though in fact, he was not a partner, but a mere financier. The firm was assessed to sales-tax, and a sum of Rs. 758.49 was found due from the firm towards the sales-tax and penalty. The sales-tax department called upon the plaintiff to pay by a notice. The latter denied his liability and refused to pay. Therefore the department moved the Collector for realisation of the amount from the plaintiff under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Chatrapur, started a case against the plaintiff and seized the articles from the plaintiff on 28-2-64. The plaintiff exhausted his remedies before the revenue authorities for releasing the seizure of the movable articles, but without any success. Ultimately he filed the present suit for the aforesaid reliefs, after serving notice under Section 80, C. P. C. 2A. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff's father was the Karta of the joint family comprising of himself, the plaintiff and his brother, and had entered into business as a partner of the partnership firm representing the family. The sales-tax dues of the firm could be realised from the plaintiff as the successor of his father even though there was division of the property by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and his brother in 1951. It was further averred that even though there was a division of the property in 1951, the division was not exhaustive, inasmuch as the cloth shop run by the father of the plaintiff as Karta of the family was kept joint and subsequently transferred in the name of the plaintiff on 24-6-54. So, as the plaintiff was in possession of the property of the joint family, he was liable to pay the taxes of the firm.