Partition of partnership interests in a Hindu joint family upheld despite no registration or metes and bounds division.

A genuine deed partitioning a Hindu joint family's share in partnership firms was effective without registration under the Registration Act, because the partnership interest was treated as movable property. The absence of division of the agricultural lands by metes and bounds did not invalidate the partition, since the family could validly divide the income from the partnership interests even if the underlying assets were not physically severable. The Assessing Officer had examined the deed, heard the representative, and recorded satisfaction as to genuineness, so the order was not passed without the enquiry required by statute and revision was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in setting aside the separate assessments on the grounds that the partial partition of the family's partnership interests was not registered, the agricultural lands were not divided by metes and bounds, and the Assessing Officer had not made the enquiry required under section 29.

Analysis: The share in the partnership firms was treated as movable property, and a deed effecting partition of such share income did not require registration under section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. The absence of division of the agricultural lands by metes and bounds did not defeat the partition, because the family could validly divide the income from the partnership interests even though the assets themselves could not be divided in the firm. The assessment order also recorded that the Assessing Officer examined the partition deed, made enquiry, heard the assessee's representative, and was satisfied that the partition was genuine. In these circumstances, the order could not be characterised as one passed without the enquiry contemplated by section 29, and the conditions for revision under section 34 were not made out.

Conclusion: The revisionary order was not sustainable and the separate assessments in the hands of the coparceners were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Hindu joint family's share in a partnership is partitioned by a genuine deed and the Assessing Officer conducts the enquiry contemplated by the statute, the partition is effective even without registration or division by metes and bounds, and revision cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner takes a different view.

---