Unequal Hindu family partition may be valid, but income-tax recognition requires complete division into definite portions.

Under Hindu law, a father may partition joint family property among himself and his minor sons without their consent; an unequal allotment does not make the partition void, but leaves it voidable at the instance of the sons. For income-tax recognition under Section 25A, however, a mere severance of status is insufficient: the joint family property must be divided into definite portions. A division of some assets, such as businesses and certain immovable properties, while jewels and other movables remain undivided, does not satisfy that requirement. The partition was therefore not capable of recognition for income-tax purposes until all joint family assets were completely partitioned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partition arrangement by a Hindu father among himself and his minor sons is void for inequality in the allotments; and (ii) whether the family properties were partitioned in "definite portions" so as to satisfy Section 25A of the Income-tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether a partition arrangement by a Hindu father among himself and his minor sons is void for inequality in the allotments.

Analysis: Under Hindu law, the father has power to effect a partition between himself and his sons, including minors, without their consent. If the allotments are unequal or unfair, the partition is not void ab initio; it is only voidable at the instance of the sons, who may repudiate it or avoid it on attaining majority. The revenue authority cannot ignore a real partition merely because it is unequal or because it may prejudice minors. Equality of allotment is not a condition precedent to the legal effectiveness of the partition.

Conclusion: The partition was not void on the ground of inequality, and the objection on that basis fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the family properties were partitioned in "definite portions" so as to satisfy Section 25A of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: Section 25A requires more than a mere severance of status; it contemplates a completed partition of the joint family property in definite portions. For properties capable of physical division, such division is ordinarily required, while in the case of a business a division by book entries and allocation of the business in definite shares may suffice. On the facts, the businesses and certain immovable properties were dealt with in a manner amounting to division in definite portions, but the jewels and some movables were left undivided and held in common. Since the partition was not complete as to all the joint family assets, the statutory requirement was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The family properties were not partitioned in definite portions within Section 25A, and the partition could not be recognised for income-tax purposes.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, and the family continued to be treated as an undivided Hindu family for the purpose of assessment until a complete partition of all joint family properties was established.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 25A of the Income-tax Act, a mere severance of status or an unequal but real partition is insufficient; recognition depends on a completed partition of the joint family properties in definite portions, and a partition of some assets while others remain undivided does not satisfy the section.

---