Notional partition under Hindu succession law does not dissolve the Hindu undivided family; wealth-tax exclusion depends on proven succession facts.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act creates only a notional partition to determine the deceased coparcener's share on succession; it does not, by itself, effect a complete partition or disrupt the Hindu undivided family. For wealth-tax purposes, the deceased's interest cannot continue to be treated as wholly belonging to the family once it vests in heirs, but exclusion from the family's net wealth depends on establishing the statutory conditions for succession and the respective ownership interests. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to treat death alone as causing total partition, and it was also not justified in excluding the deceased's share without first recording the facts needed for section 6 to apply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the death of a male coparcener under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act brought about a complete partition and disruption of the Hindu undivided family. (ii) Whether the deceased coparcener's share, which devolved on his heirs, had to be excluded from the wealth of the continuing Hindu undivided family.

Issue (i): Whether the death of a male coparcener under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act brought about a complete partition and disruption of the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: Section 6 creates only a legal fiction for determining the share of the deceased coparcener where succession opens on his death. The fiction is confined to computation of the deceased's interest and does not deem an actual or notional partition of the entire joint family property. Continuance of the Hindu undivided family depends on an actual partition by metes and bounds and the statutory enquiry under the wealth-tax law. A notional partition for succession purposes does not by itself terminate coparcenary status.

Conclusion: The answer was in the negative. The Tribunal was wrong in holding that the death of Shri Chandrasinhrao resulted in complete partition of the Hindu undivided family.

Issue (ii): Whether the deceased coparcener's share, which devolved on his heirs, had to be excluded from the wealth of the continuing Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: For wealth-tax purposes, only assets belonging to the assessee can be included in net wealth. Once the deceased's interest devolves by succession, that interest vests in the heirs in their individual capacity and cannot continue to belong wholly to the Hindu undivided family. The proper inclusion therefore depends on the respective interests of the family and the heirs. However, the applicability of section 6 itself depends on the existence of the necessary class I heirs, and the record did not establish those facts. The Tribunal had not examined this foundational requirement.

Conclusion: The answer was in the negative. The Tribunal was not justified in allowing exclusion of the deceased's interest without first recording the facts necessary for application of section 6.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue on both questions, and no order as to costs was made.

Ratio Decidendi: A notional partition under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is confined to determining the deceased coparcener's share for succession and does not by itself disrupt the Hindu undivided family; for wealth-tax, exclusion of the deceased's interest depends on the statutory conditions for succession being established and on the respective ownership of the assets.

---