Legal holding under agricultural income tax law requires title-linked possession, not mere actual occupation after partition.

After a completed partition, agricultural income from land allotted to one co-sharer could not be assessed in the hands of another co-sharer merely because he was in actual possession. Section 11 was construed to require legal holding, meaning possession supported by title and a right to possess, not bare physical control. Permissive or convenient occupation of land allotted to another did not make the occupant the holder in law, and the assessment scheme could not extend tax liability beyond the person who legally held the property.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a completed partition, the agricultural income from land allotted to one co-sharer could be assessed in the hands of another co-sharer who was only in actual possession of that land under Section 11 of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act.

Analysis: The partition was accepted as complete on the record. The statutory expression used in Section 11 was "hold", which was construed as legal holding with a right to possess flowing from title, not mere physical possession. After partition, permissive or convenient possession of property allotted to another co-sharer did not amount to legal holding of that property. The scheme of Section 11 was treated as one of convenient assessment, but it could not extend tax liability to income from property which the assessee did not hold in law.

Conclusion: The income arising from the share allotted to the major son could not be assessed to agricultural income tax in the hands of the assessee merely because he was in actual possession of that share.

---