Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 737 (KER)

S. S. Krishna Rao v. Susheela Krishna Pai

2016-08-29

ANU SIVARAMAN, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The defendants in a suit for realization of money are the appellants. The suit was decreed. First appeal by the defendants was dismissed. Hence, this appeal is filed against the judgment in the first appeal. 3. The substance of the plaint claim is based on a particular claim as to the goodwill of a partnership firm of which Ext.B1 is the deed of partnership. The partners thereunder are the appealing defendants and late Krishna Pai, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The business of the firm was being carried on under Ext.B1 deed dated 27.12.1974. Krishna Pai died on 03.05.1982. The surviving partners carried on the business under a reconstituted partnership deed dated 04.05.1982. The rights of late Krishna Pai devolved on the plaintiffs. Resultantly, on 02.06.1982, Ext.A1 was entered into between the defendants who are the partners of the reconstituted firm and the plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of late Krishna Pai. Thereafter, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty issued order dated 04.01.1984 assessing the estate duty due on account of the estate of deceased Krishna Pai. In doing so, the assessing authority for estate duty included a component towards the share of goodwill of the firm, and the share of deceased Krishna Pai was fixed at Rs.70,221/-. The suit was thereafter filed by the legal representatives of Krishna Pai claiming that they are entitled to the said amount of Rs.70,221/- as share of goodwill, as a consequence of parting with the rights of Ext.B1 partnership firm. This is the plaint claim. 4. The defendants contended, among other things, that the suit as laid is not maintainable and after Ext.A1, nothing survives to enable the plaintiffs to make any claim and Ext.A1 as between the parties is a full and final settlement of all rights and liabilities and relinquishment of any future claims inter se the parties. It is also their contention that Ext.A1 also takes specific care of the liability to income tax, estate duty etc. referable to late Krishna Pai as payable by his heirs and that other parties, who are defendants, shall not be liable. 5. It is also their contention that Ext.A1 also takes specific care of the liability to income tax, estate duty etc. referable to late Krishna Pai as payable by his heirs and that other parties, who are defendants, shall not be liable. 5. It is worthwhile to note at this point of time that the assessment of the component referable to estate duty by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and the inclusion of Rs.70,221/- as 25% share of the deceased Krishna Pai no more survives in view of the appellate decision by the Controller of Estate Duty (Appeals) issued on 28.03.1988, which is Ext.A33. 6. Learned counsel for the appealing defendants argued, pointedly, that Ext.A1 is a concluded contract between the parties in the nature of final settlement of all claims as between the defendants and the legal representatives of late Krishna Pai and there is no provision in the agreement regarding any further issues being raised, including any amount towards the share of goodwill. It is also pointed that the claim for the share of goodwill is made solely on the basis of the assessment order relating to estate duty and that can never become the foundation of the cause of action to raise a claim on the basis of the contract between the parties in such transactions. He also argued that Ext.A1 not having been impeached even in the suit and not having been claimed to exclude Ext.A1 and adjudicate on rights of parties independently, the suit itself would not lie. He further argued that there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the share of goodwill was intended to be treated as available for partition or accounting. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the facts appear to be clear that it was only after the receipt of Ext.A3 proceedings, the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of late Krishna Pai, knew about their eligibility to claim the share of goodwill and it cannot be said that Ext.A1 has become final, having regard to the contents of Ext.A2 whereby the defendants had notified the plaintiffs of certain further adjustments of amounts drawn by late Krishna Pai during his life time for payment of insurance premium in his personal name. Ext.A2, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, is an indicator that Ext.A1 cannot be treated as final in such a manner as to exclude any further adjudication. He further argued that the plaintiffs would have been under continued bereavement and it would be impermissible to hold that Ext.A1 should be treated as final between the parties. A reading of the plaint and the evidence in the case would clearly show that what is claimed is share of goodwill of the firm, which was governed by Ext.B1 deed. 8. Goodwill is an asset of the business and it is generated as the business is carried on and may be augmented with the passage of time. Goodwill of a business depends upon a fallout of circumstances or a combination of them. The goodwill denotes the benefit arising from connection and reputation. It is a property of a highly peculiar kind. A variety of elements goes to its making, and its composition varies in different trades and in different business in the same trade, and while one element may preponderate in one business, another may dominate in another business. Yet, because of its intangible nature, it remains insubstantial in form and nebulous in character. See for support the decisions in C.I.T., Bangalore v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [ AIR 1981 SC 972 ] and in M/s. S.C. Cambatta and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess and Profits Tax, Bombay [ AIR 1961 SC 1010 ]. 9. The varied facts and particulars that may be relevant to assess as to what is goodwill as enunciated by different authors through various precedents of the courts in India as well as English courts, would clearly show that the availability of something that can be assessed as goodwill and the quantification of goodwill for the purpose of partition being made between the partners at the time of separation of their rights or dissolution of partnership or reconstitution of the partnership are primarily questions of fact and when such commercial determination is made, there would be no room for merely depending upon assessment orders passed by authorities dealing with estate duty assessment, since they operate primarily on presumptive premise for the purpose of determination of estate duty. We say this here and now because the question whether a component was due as goodwill or part of goodwill is something which has to be taken as available for consideration while Ext.A1 settlement was entered into on 02.06.1982. Going by the manner in which the document is made and executed with support of legal assistance, it can be seen that all issues relevant as between the legal representatives of the deceased partner and the surviving partners have been considered and dealt with. We say this because Ext.A1 shows that all accounts between the parties have been settled and allocations have been made. The heirs of the deceased partner Krishna Pai had declared that they do not have any further claim against the other partners individually or against the firm in the matter of settlement of amounts of late Krishna Pai. That, in our view, is credible enough to conclude all issues. That position notwithstanding, clause 9 deals with income tax and estate duty liability of late Krishna Pai, and the heirs of late Krishna Pai had taken the responsibility by saying that other partners of the firm will not be liable. Merely because a provision of payment of pension and certain other provisions have been made in favour of the heirs of late Krishna Pai by the other surviving partners who have re-constituted the partnership firm, they do not in any manner impair the clear and concluded terms of Ext.A1. Ext.A2 only shows that there were certain personal withdrawals by Krishna Pai towards payment of his insurance premium. That amount was also reconciled. As already noted, the appellate authority had issued Ext.A33 taking care of the liability of the heirs of Krishna Pai for the amount covered by Ext.A3 assessment order of estate duty, insofar as it relates to the so-called share in the goodwill. This way also, it can be seen that there is no reason for the plaintiffs to be aggrieved merely on the strength of the claim raised by the authorities dealing with estate duty assessment. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that Ext.A1 was made during the bereavement of the family of Krishna Pai. As noted, Krishna Pai died on 03.05.1982. The firm was being carried on by the defendants by deed dated 04.05.1982. It is thereafter on 02.06.1982 that Ext.A1 was entered into between the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that Ext.A1 was made during the bereavement of the family of Krishna Pai. As noted, Krishna Pai died on 03.05.1982. The firm was being carried on by the defendants by deed dated 04.05.1982. It is thereafter on 02.06.1982 that Ext.A1 was entered into between the parties. That obviously was done after negotiations with the assistance of a legal person or a chartered accountant. Therefore, we are not persuaded to take the view that Ext.A1 should not be relied on. That position notwithstanding, Ext.A1 has not been impeached by the plaintiffs before the trial court and no relief was sought to be granted by excluding or ignoring the terms of Ext.A1. Hence, we are of the view that the plaint claim does not stand. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal succeeds. In the result, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and the decree and judgment granted by the trial court are set aside and the suit O.S. No. 75 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Kozhikode is dismissed. No costs.