{"id":218652,"date":"1964-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964"},"modified":"2019-03-15T02:22:31","modified_gmt":"2019-03-14T20:52:31","slug":"champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964","title":{"rendered":"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1737, \t\t 1964 SCR (2) 921<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHAMPARAN CANE CONCERN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/04\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1737\t\t  1964 SCR  (2) 921\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1985 SC 278\t (4)\n RF\t    1991 SC1806\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\nAgricultural Income Tax-Assessment-Land owned by two persons\nin  shares--Common  Manager  appointed-Partnership  or\t co-\nownership--Test--Bihar\tAgricultural  Income Tax  Act,\t1948\n(Act  32 of 1948), ss. 2, 3, 13, 28  (3)-Indian\t Partnership\nAct, 1932 (Act IX of 1932), s. 2 (k), 4.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   Champaran\t  Cane\tConcern,   appellant,\tcarried\t  on\nagricultural operations in lands owned by two persons.\t One\nof  these two persons had a share of four annas in  a  rupee\nand  other twelve annas in a rupee.  They appointed  another\nperson\tas a common manager for facility of cultivation\t and\nmanagement.  There was no partnership agreement entered into\nby  these two persons.\tIn the returns submitted to the\t tax\nauthorities  for the assessment years the concern was  shown\nas a \"firm\".\nThe  Agricultural  Income  'Fax\t authorities  assessed\t the\nappellant  for three years on the basis that  the  appellant\nwas a partnership firm under s. 3 of the Bihar\tAgricultural\nIncome Tax Act, 1948.  The assessee claimed that it was\t not\na partner. ship firm but a co-ownership concern and that  it\ncould  be assessed only under s. 13 of the said\t Act.\tThis\nplea  was rejected by the Income Tax officer.  Appeals\twere\nfiled to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income\t Tax\nand the same were dismissed.  Applications for revision were\nthen  filed before the Board of Revenue.  The Board did\t not\naccept the plea of the present appellant that the assessment\nshould have been made under s. 13 or the Act.  Thereafter an\napplication was made to the Board, for making a reference to\nthe High Court which was refused.  Thereupon, the High Court\nwas moved under s. 28 (3) of the Act for a reference by\t the\nBoard  and the High Court called for a reference.  The\tHigh\nCourt held that the question whether, the assessee was a co-\nownership  concern or a partnership firm was a\tquestion  of\nfact,  and  that there were facts and circumstances  in\t the\ncase  from  which it was open to the taxing  authorities  to\ncome to the conclusion that\n922\nthe concern was a partnership firm.  The High Court answered\nthe reference against the assessee.  The present appeal\t was\nfiled by Special leave of this Court.\nIn  the\t appeal\t before this Court  substantially  the\tsame\nquestions  were raised as before the High Court, the  taxing\nauthorities and the Board of Revenue.\nHeld that the question whether a concern is a partnership or\nnot,  is  a  mixed  question of fact  and  law\tand  if\t the\nauthorities  who  have to ascertain that  question  apply  a\nwrong principle of law in instructing themselves as to\twhat\nthey  have  to\tfind,  then their finding  of  fact  is\t not\nconclusive because they have done it under wrong principle.\nModern Rigg & Co. and R. B. Eskrigge & Co. v. Monks (1923) 8\nT. C. 450, referred to.\nHeld further that the appointment of a common manager by two\nco-owners acting together is consistent with either view and\ndoes not clinch the issue in favour of a partnership.\nThe   mete  fact  that\tthe  profits  or  even\tlosses\t are\ndistributed in accordance with the shares of the two  owners\ndoes  not  necessarily establish a  partnership\t within\t the\nmeaning of the Partnership Act.\nOne  of the principal differences between a partnership\t and\nco-ownnership  is that co-ownership -is not necessarily\t the\nresult\tof  agreement whereas partnership  is.\t The  second\ndifference is that co-ownership does not necessarily involve\ncommunity  of  profit  or  of  loss  but  partnership  does.\nAnother\t difference  is that one co-owner  can\twithout\t the\nconsent\t of other, transfer his interest etc. to a  stranger\nbut  a partner cannot do this.\tFourthly, in  a\t partnership\neach  partner  acts for all but a co-owner is  not  such  an\nagent real or implied of the other.\nA  mistake by the Revenue Board in framing the question\t for\nreference  to  the  High  Court will  not  change  the\treal\nposition in law.\nSimply\tbecause a co-ownership concern has described  itself\nas  a  \"firm\"  in  the printed\tforms  of  return  does\t not\nnecessarily  mean that it is a partnership firm\t within\t the\nmeaning\t of s. 4 of the Indian Partnership Act as  indicated\nin s. 2 (k) of the Act.\n923\nFrom  the  facts and circumstances of the case it  is  found\nthat  the  appellant  is a co-ownership concern\t and  not  a\npartnership.   The manager is liable to assessment under  s.\n13 of the Act.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 537,\t 538
\nand 539 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nSeptember 29, 1959, of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous
\nJudicial cases Nos. 227 to 229 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
H.   N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General of India and P. K.
\nOhatterjee, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
S. P. Varma, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1963.  April 9. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nS.K. DAS J.-The Champaran Cane Concern, appellant  before
\nus, was assessed to agricultural income-tax under the  Bihar
\nAgricultural Income-tax Act (Bihar Act 32 of 1948), referred
\nto as the Act in this judgment, by the Agricultural  Income-
\ntax  officer, Motibari for three years 1356 F. 1357  F.\t and
\n1358  F.  corresponding\t to  1948-49,  1950-51\tand  1951-52
\nrespectively.  It was assessed as a partnership firm for all
\nthe  three years, though the assessee claimed that it was  a
\nco-ownership  concern  belonging to  two  persons,  Padampat
\nSinghania  having  Re.\t0-4-0  share  and  Lala\t Bishundayal
\nJhunjhunwala  having Re. 0-12-0 share.\tThe concern, it\t was
\nstated, carried on agricultural operations in six farms con-
\nsisting\t of a little over Ac. 2,000-00 of land out of  which
\nabout  Ac.  1,600-00  were  purchased  jointly\tby  Padampat
\nSinghania  and Bishundayal Jhunjhunwala and Ac. 483-00\twere
\npurchased  in the name of a mill, namely,  Motilal  Padampat
\nSugar  Mill  of\t which the aforesaid two  persons  were\t the
\nowners.\t  Later on by a resolution of the mill-company,\t the
\nfarms
\n924<\/span>
\nwere separated from the mill and the lands in their entirety
\nwere cultivated by the concern.\t As nothing now depends upon
\nthe  distinction between the lands purchased in the name  of
\nthe  mill and those acquired otherwise, we shall ignore\t the
\ndistinction for the purpose of these cases.
\nThe  assessee  claimed that the concern was  a\tco-ownership
\nconcern\t belonging  to the two persons above  named  in\t the
\nshares\talready\t indicated, and as .they were  residents  of
\nUttar  Pradesh\tat a very long distance from  the  farms  in
\nChamparan,  they  appointed  one S. K.\tKanodia\t its  common
\nmanager\t for facility of cultivation and  management.\tThis
\ncommon\tmanager\t lookde after and managed  the\tagricultural
\noperations  during the years in question.  The further\tcase
\nof  the assessee was that the lands were  undivided  between
\nthe  co-owners and the total net profits arising out of\t the
\njoint  cultivation were divided between the  two  co-owners.
\nOn  these statements the assessee pleaded that s. 13 of\t the
\nAct applied and the common manager should have been assessed
\nin respect of the agricultural income-tax payable by each of
\nthe  two  co-owners in respect of their shares\tonly.\tThis
\nplea of the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax officer.
\nAppeals were then preferred against the assessment,, made to
\nthe  Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax.   These
\nappeals were dismissed with certain modifications with which
\nwe  are\t not  now concerned.  Then,  three  applications  in
\nrevision  were\tfiled to the Board of  Revenue.\t  The  Board
\nreduced\t the assessment under schedule C but did not  accept
\nthe  plea of the assessee that the assessments\tshould\thave
\nbeen  made under s. 13 of the Act.  The assessee then  moved
\nthe  Board  of Revenue for making a reference  to  the\tHigh
\nCourt on the following question of law which it stated arose
\nout of the order of the Board :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
\n\t      case the common manager is to be assessed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       925<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      under s. 13 of the Bihar Agricultural  Income-
\n\t      tax  Act (Bihar Act 32 of 1948) in respect  of
\n\t      the agricultural income payable by each of the
\n\t      partners;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      It is to be noticed that the underlined  words
\n\t      in  the question appeared to assume  that\t the
\n\t      concern  was a partnership firm.\t The  Board,
\n\t      however, refused to make a reference.
\n\t      The  High Court of Patna was then moved  under
\n\t      s. 28 (3) of the Act and, it called for a\t re-
\n\t      ference from the Board on a differently worded
\n\t      question\t which\texpressed  the\treal   issue
\n\t      between the parties
\n\t      “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
\n\t      case,  the common manager should\tbe  assessed
\n\t      under  section  13 of the\t Bihar\tAgricultural
\n\t      Income Tax Act in respect of the\tagricultural
\n\t      income  tax  payable by  the  persons  jointly
\n\t      liable ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  question framed by the High Court did not\tassume\tthat
\nthe   co-owners\t of  the  concern  were\t partners   thereof.
\nStrangely enough when the Board submitted a statement of the
\ncase  in pursuance of the order of the High Court, it  again
\nreverted  to the old form of the question.  The High  Court,
\nhowever, took the question to be the one which it had  asked
\nthe’  Board to refer to it and on that footing\tanswered  it
\nagainst the assessee.  The High Court said that the question
\nwhether\t the  assessee\twas  a\tco-ownership  concern  or  a
\npartnership firm was a question of fact, and even otherwise,
\nthere were facts and circumstances from which it was open to
\nthe  taxing authorities to come to the conclusion  that\t the
\nfirm  was  a partner-ship firm.\t On this  footing  the\tHigh
\nCourt answered the question against the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
926<\/span><\/p>\n
The  assessee  then moved this court for special  leave\t and
\nhaving\tobtained such leave has brought the present  appeals
\nto this court from the decision of the\t High  Court   dated
\nSeptember 29, 1959.\n<\/p>\n
We may now refer to some of the provisions of\t  the\t Act
\nwhich  bear upon the question before us. S. 2 of the Act  is
\nthe definition section.\t According to\tthe definition given
\nin  that section “agricultural income” means inter alia\t any
\nincome\tderived\t from land which is  used  for\tagricultural
\npurposes.   It\twas not disputed before us that\t the  income
\nwhich  the  assessee in those cases derived  was  from\tland
\nwhich  was  used  for  agricultural  purposes,\tnamely,\t the
\ncultivation  of\t sugarcane  etc.   The\tdefinition   section
\nfurther stated that tile word “firm” had the same meaning as
\nin  the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the word  “Person”
\nmeant  any individual, association of individuals owning  or
\nholding property for himself or for any other or partly\t for
\nhis  own  bent-fit and partly for another either  as  owner,
\ntrustee, receiver, common manager, administrator or executor
\nor  in\tany  capacity  recognised by  law  and\tincluded  an
\nindividual,  Hindu  family,  firm or  company  The  charging
\nsection\t is  s. 3 which says  that  agricultural  income-tax
\nshall be charged for each financial year in accordance\twith
\nand  subject  to  the provisions of the\t Act  on  the  total
\nagricultural  income of the previous year of  every  person.
\nAgricultural income-tax means the tax payable under the Act.
\nIt  would  appear  from what we have stated  above  that  by
\nreason\tof the definition of the words “firm”  and  “person”
\nthe assessee if it is a partnership firm would be liable  to
\ntax  as a firm on its agricultural income by reason  of\t the
\ncharging  section,  namely,  s. 3. In s.  3  of\t the  Indian
\nIncome-tax  Act, 1922 which is similar in terms,  the  words
\n“‘of every firm or association of persons or the partners of
\nthe  firm”  were subsequently added in 1924 and\t the  Indian
\nIncome-tax  Act\t makes\ta  distinction\tin  the\t matter\t  of
\nassessment
\n 921<\/span>
\nbetween\t a  registered\tand an unregistered  firm.   We\t are
\nreferring  to these provisions, because at one stage it\t was
\nargued on behalf of the assessee that s. 13 of the Act which
\nwe  shall presently quote applied to the present cases\teven
\nif  the\t assessee were a partnership’  firm.   Appearing  on
\nbehalf\tof the assessee, the learned Solicitor General\thas,
\nhowever, conceded before us that he is not in a position  to
\nargue that s. 13 of the Act will apply even if the  assessee
\nis a partnership firm.\n<\/p>\n
\t      We may now read s. 13-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  any  person  holds  land,\t from  which
\n\t      agricultural  income is derived, as  a  common
\n\t      manager  appointed under any law for the\ttime
\n\t      being  in force or under any agreement  or  as
\n\t      receiver,, administrator or the like on behalf
\n\t      of persons jointly interested in such land  or
\n\t      in the agricultural income derived  thereform,
\n\t      the   aggregate\tof  the\t sums\tpayable\t  as
\n\t      agricultural income-tax by each person on\t the
\n\t      agricultural income derived from such land and
\n\t      received\tby  him shall be  assessed  on\tsuch
\n\t      common manager, receiver, administrator or the
\n\t      like,  and  he  shall  be\t deemed\t to  be\t the
\n\t      assessee\t in  respect  of  the\tagricultural
\n\t      income-tax so payable by each such person\t and
\n\t      shall be liable to pay the same”.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tquite  clear from the section that  where  a  common
\nmanager appointed under any law or under any agreement holds
\nland from which agricultural income is derived, on behalf of
\npersons\t  jointly   interested\tin  the\t land  or   in\t the
\nagricultural income derived therefrom, the aggregate of\t the
\nsums  payable as agricultural income-tax by each  person  on
\nthe agricultural. income derived from such land and received
\nby him shall be assessed on the common manager in respect of
\nthe agricultural income-tax
\n928<\/span>
\nso payable by each such person and the common manager  shall
\nbe liable to pay the same.  We have already stated that\t the
\nlearned Solicitor-General has not now argued before us\tthat
\ns. 13 will apply in the case of a partnership firm.  He\t has
\nhowever very strongly argued that s. 13 in terms will  apply
\nif  the\t assessee  in the present cases\t is  a\tco-ownership
\nconcern\t (as distinguished from a partnership firm) and\t the
\ncommon\tmanager thereof must be assessed in respect  of\t the
\naggregate of the sums payable as agricultural income-tax  by
\neach  such  co-owner.\tMr. S. P. Varma\t appearing  for\t the
\nrespondent-State  of Bihar has indeed conceded that  if\t the
\nassessee  in  the present cases is a  co-ownership  concern,
\nthen s. 13 will apply and the question referred to the\tHigh
\nCourt  must be answered in favour of the assessee.   He\t has
\nhowever argued that the High Court was right in holding that
\nthe  assessee  was a partnership firm and  on  that  footing
\nanswering the question against the assessee.
\nThus, the entire controversy before us narrows down to this:
\non the facts and circumstances stated in the cases, was\t the
\nassessee  a partnership firm or a co-ownership concern ?  We
\nshall  presently come to the distinction between these\ttwo,
\nbut  we think that in a question of this sort both form\t and
\nsubstance  must\t be  considered.   Now,\t partnership  or  no
\npartnership  is ordinarily a question of fact, but we  agree
\nwith  learned  counsel for the assessee that it is  a  mixed
\nquestion  of  fact  and\t law  in  the  sense  that  if\t the
\nauthorities  who have to ascertain question of fact apply  a
\nwrong principle of law in instructing themselves as to\twhat
\nthey  have  to\tfind,  then their finding  of  fact  is\t not
\nconclusive  because  they have done it\taccording  to  wrong
\nprinciples  (see Morden Rigg & Co. and R. B. Eskrigge &\t Co.
\nv. Monks (1).  Looked at from the aforesaid standpoint,\t the
\nquestion before the taxing authorities in the present  cases
\nwas  whether on the facts and circumstances  established  in
\nthe cases an inference of a partnership firm within
\n(1)  (1923) 8 T. C. 450,464.\n<\/p>\n
 929<\/span><\/p>\n
the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 followed and
\ns. 13 was not attracted thereto, That, we take it, must be a
\nquestion  of law.  That was the question which was  referred
\nto  the\t High Court and the High Court answered\t it  on\t the
\nfooting that the proper inference was that the assessee\t was
\na  partnership\tfirm  within  the  meaning  of\tthe   Indian
\nPartnership  Act,  1932.   The assessee\t contends  that\t the
\nproper\tinference  is that the assessee was  a\tco-ownership
\nconcern\t and not a partnership firm and on that footing\t the
\ncommon manager is entitled to be assessed under s. 13 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Let us first see what are the facts and circumstances  which
\nhave  been established in the case.  First of all,  we\thave
\nthe  name of the assessee as the Champaran Cane\t Concern,  a
\nname  which may apply to a partnership firm as well as to  a
\nco-ownership  concern.\tSecondly, the finding of the  Deputy
\nCommissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, a finding which  is
\npart of the statement of the case, is that the two co-owners
\nappointed  Kanodia  as the common manager  for\tfacility  of
\nmanagement.  Now, the appointment letter showed that the two
\nco-owners  joined together in appointing Kanodia  as  common
\nmanager for supervision of cultivation and for management of
\nthe  agricultural properties in the district  of  Champaran.
\n“Partnership”  within the meaning of the Indian\t Partnership
\nAct of 1932 is a relation between persons who have agreed to
\nshare the profits of a business carried on by all or any  of
\nthem acting for all.  The appointment of Kanodia by the\t two
\nco-owners acting together is consistent with either view and
\ndoes  not clinch the issue in favour of a partnership.\t The
\nHigh Court appears to have taken the appointment of  Kanodia
\nby the two co-owners as a circumstance establishing a  part-
\nnership.   The High Court has further pointed out  that\t the
\ntwo  co-owners\tlived in Uttar Pradesh and belonged  to\t two
\ndifferent families.  We do not see
\n930<\/span>
\nhow  that  circumstance\t gives any indication in  law  of  a
\npartnership.  As to division of the profits and losses,\t the
\nfinding\t of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural  Income-
\ntax  was that the two proprietors had no definite shares  in
\nthe agricultural lands, by which he must have meant that the
\nlands of the six farms had not been partitioned amongst\t the
\ntwo co-owners by metes and bounds.  The cultivation was made
\njointly on behalf of the two co-owners by the common manager
\nand  the profits arising therefrom were distributed to\tthem
\nin  proportion of their respective shares of Rs.  0-4-0\t and
\nRs.  0-12-0.  This circumstance has again been taken by\t the
\nHigh  Court  as a circumstance from which  an  inference  of
\npartnership  necessarily  follows.  Again, we do  not  agree
\nwith  the  High Court.\tTwo co-owners may appoint  a  common
\nmanager\t for facility of cultivation and management  without
\nentering into a partnership and the fact that the profits or
\neven  the  losses  are distributed in  accordance  with\t the
\nshares\tof the two owners does not necessarily\testablish  a
\npartnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act, 1932.
\nIn Lindley on Partnership (Twelfth Edition page 57) the main
\ndifferences  between  co-ownership and\tco-partnership\thave
\nbeen compared.\tOne of the principal differences is that co-
\nownership  is  not  necessarily\t the  result  of  agreement,
\nwhereas\t partnership  is.  In the cases before us  there  is
\nnothing\t in the record to show that there was any  agreement
\nbetween the two proprietors to form a partnership firm.\t The
\nsecond difference is that co-ownership does not\t necessarily
\ninvolve\t community  of profit or of  loss,  but\t partnership
\ndoes.  In the cases before us there is a finding that  there
\nis community of profit.\t A third difference is that one\t co-
\nowner  can  without the consent of the other,  transfer\t his
\ninterest  etc,\tto a stranger.\tA partner  cannot  do  this.
\nAbout  this point there is no evidence nor any finding\tthat
\nthe  two  proprietors  Padampat\t Singhania  and\t Bishundayal
\nJhunjhunwala could not transfer their interests in the
\n 931<\/span>
\nconcern\t without  the consent of each other.   The  greatest
\ndifficulty  which faces the respondent in the present  cases
\nis  that  it cannot point to any fact or  circumstance\tfrom
\nwhich it can be inferred that one proprietor was the  agent,
\nreal  or  implied,  of the other.   In\ta  partnership\teach
\npartner acts for all.  In a co-ownership one co-owner is not
\nas such the agent, real or implied, of the other.  There  is
\na complete absence of any fact or circumstance\testablishing
\na  relation  of agency between the two\tproprietors  in\t the
\npresent\t case; nor have the taxing authorities come  to\t any
\nfinding that there was such a relation.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court made a reference to the  returns  filed  on
\nbehalf\tof the assessee for the three years in\tquestion  as
\nalso  the  frame of the question which the  assessee  itself
\nwished to be referred to the High Court.  As to the frame of
\nthe  question  we  have stated earlier\tthat  the  Board  of
\nRevenue\t really\t made a mistake and it may even be  that  on
\nbehalf of the assessee the question was not properly framed.
\nThe  assessee’s contention all along was that it was  a\t co-
\nownership concern and not a partnership, but in framing\t the
\nquestion the word partners was used.  We do not think that a
\nmistake\t in  the framing of the question,  which  was  later
\ncorrected  by the High Court, will change the real  position
\nin  law.  As to the returns which were filed they  were\t not
\nprinted\t in  the  paper\t book.\t Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent  gave  us copies of the returns.   These  returns
\nshowed\tthat in all the three years the\t assessee  indicated
\nits  status  as a co-ownership concern and the name  of\t the
\nassessee was shown as the manager, Champaran Cane Concern or
\ncommon\tmanager,  Champaran Cane Concern.  The body  of\t the
\nreturn contained four alternatives as to whether the  return
\nwas being submitted by an individual, a firm, a joint family
\nor an association of individuals.  The intention of  putting
\nfour ,alternatives in the printed form of the return is to
\n932<\/span>
\ncut  out the alternatives which do not apply.  In the  cases
\nbefore us the alternative relating to individual, family and
\nassociation of individuals were cut out and the\t alternative
\n“firm” remained.  The High Court seems to have thought\tthat
\nthe retention of the word firm’ in the return amounted to an
\nadmission  that the assessee was a partnership firm.  We  do
\nnot  agree.  In the printed form of the return there was  no
\nalternative as to a co-ownership concern and ina  popular
\nsense, a co-ownership concern may describe itself as a firm.
\nThat does not necessarily mean that it is a partnership firm
\nwithin the meaning of s. 4 of the Indian Partnership Act  as
\nindicated in s. 2 (k) of the Act.  In our view no, fact$ and
\ncircumstances have been found in these cases from which\t the
\ntaxing\tauthorities  properly instructed in law\t could\thave
\ncome  to the conclusion that the assessee was a\t partnership
\nfirm  within  the meaning of s. 2 (k) of the  Act.   On\t the
\ncontrary  the facts and, circumstances found by\t the  taxing
\nauthorities  were  all\tconsistent with\t the  claim  of\t the
\nassessee  that\tit  was a co-ownership\tconcern\t the  common
\nmanager whereof was liable to assessment under s. 13 of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
A  number  of  decisions were cited. at the Bar\t as  to\t the
\ndistinction  between co-ownership and partnership.  We\thave
\nalready\t referred to the main differences between  the\ttwo.
\nThe legal position as to this distinction seems to us to  be
\nso clear and well settled that we consider it unnecessary to
\nrefer to the case law on the subject.  We do not think\tthat
\nany  useful  purpose  will be served  by  referring  to\t the
\ndecisions cited at the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons given above we have come to the  conclusion
\nthat  the answer which the High Court gave to  the  question
\nwas  not correct.  We accordingly allow the anneals and\t set
\naside  the  judgment  and orders of  the  High\tCourt  dated
\nSeptember 29, 1959,
\n933<\/span>
\nand  answer  the question in favour of\tthe  assessee.\t The
\nassessee will be entitled to the costs throughout.
\nAppeals allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1737, 1964 SCR (2) 921 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: CHAMPARAN CANE CONCERN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/04\/1964 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. SARKAR, A.K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChamparan Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-14T20:52:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T20:52:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964\"},\"wordCount\":3186,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964\",\"name\":\"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-14T20:52:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-14T20:52:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964","datePublished":"1964-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T20:52:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964"},"wordCount":3186,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964","name":"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-14T20:52:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/champaran-cane-concern-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-9-april-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218652","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218652\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}