Actual partition by metes and bounds is required for Hindu family partition under income-tax law; no question of law arose on registration.

Section 25-A required not only separation in status but actual partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds; on the facts found by the income-tax authorities, no such partition was proved, so the finding against partition was upheld. Refusal to register the alleged partnership firm under Section 26-A was treated as final under the statutory scheme then in force, and the question whether the business was a genuine firm or continued as a Hindu undivided family turned on factual findings supported by material; accordingly, no referable question of law arose and the registration issue could not be reopened.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a claim of partition under Section 25-A required actual partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds; (ii) whether refusal to register the alleged partnership firm under Section 26-A gave rise to any question of law in the circumstances.

Issue (i): whether a claim of partition under Section 25-A required actual partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds.

Analysis: The provision was read as requiring not merely a separation in status, but also partition of the joint family property in definite portions. The language of the section was treated as deliberate and complete, so that the additional requirement could not be ignored. On the facts found by the income-tax authorities, there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that no such actual partition had taken place.

Conclusion: The requirement of Section 25-A included actual partition by metes and bounds, and the finding against partition was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether refusal to register the alleged partnership firm under Section 26-A gave rise to any question of law in the circumstances.

Analysis: The refusal to register the firm was treated as final under the statutory scheme then in force, since no appeal lay against that decision. The Court further held that the question whether the business was a genuine firm or continued as a Hindu undivided family depended on the factual findings of the income-tax authorities, and those findings were supported by ample material. The issue of registration therefore did not disclose a referable question of law.

Conclusion: The refusal to register the firm under Section 26-A was not open to challenge on the facts found, and no question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The application was rejected because the statutory conditions for treating the family as partitioned were not satisfied and the proposed firm registration could not be reopened in reference proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Hindu family claims to have ceased to be joint for income-tax purposes, Section 25-A requires both separation in status and actual partition of the joint family property in definite portions, and a factual finding against such partition will not give rise to a referable question of law.

---