Co-ownership versus partnership in agricultural land tax: common management and shared profits did not establish mutual agency.

Common management of jointly held agricultural land did not by itself create a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Joint appointment of a manager, common cultivation, and division of profits according to shares were consistent with co-ownership unless there was evidence of an agreement to form a partnership and the element of mutual agency. On the facts found, there was no material showing that one co-owner acted as the agent of the other, so the concern remained a co-ownership arrangement. The common manager was therefore liable to assessment under section 13 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the common manager of jointly held agricultural land was liable to assessment under section 13 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, on the footing that the concern was a partnership firm rather than a co-ownership concern.

Analysis: The governing provisions treated a common manager as the assessee where he held land on behalf of persons jointly interested in the land or in the agricultural income derived from it. The decisive question was whether the facts established a partnership within the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, because if the concern was only co-ownership, section 13 would apply. The existence of joint appointment of a manager, common cultivation, and division of profits according to shares did not by itself establish partnership. There was no finding of an agreement to form a partnership, no material showing mutual agency, and no fact indicating that one co-owner was the agent of the other. The facts found were consistent with co-ownership and inconsistent with a partnership relation.

Conclusion: The concern was not a partnership firm but a co-ownership concern, and the common manager was liable to be assessed under section 13 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948. The question was therefore answered in favour of the assessee.

---