Partition by metes and bounds prevents assessment of an erstwhile Hindu joint family as continuing in law.

A partition need not be proved only by a registered deed; a clear intention to separate, coupled with division of property by metes and bounds and a panch palupatti, is sufficient to effect severance of status in a Hindu joint family. Once the authority knew from the inspection report that partition had already taken place, it could not ignore that factual position and assess the petitioners as if the HUF continued to exist. If assessment was made at all, it had to proceed on the basis of separate co-ownership or tenancy-in-common and tax only individual income. The assessment as an HUF was without jurisdiction and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment treating the petitioners as members of a Hindu undivided family despite a prior partition by metes and bounds was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: A partition need not be evidenced only by a registered deed. A definite and unequivocal indication of intention to separate, coupled with division of properties by metes and bounds and a panch palupatti, is sufficient to bring about severance of status in a Hindu joint family. Once the authority became aware from the inspection report that partition had taken place, it could not ignore that factual position and proceed to tax the petitioners as if the joint family continued. If assessment was to be made at all, it had to proceed on the basis that the petitioners were separate co-owners or tenants-in-common and only their individual income could be brought to tax.

Conclusion: The assessment as an HUF was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained; the challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the assessment and consequential demand were set aside because the authority failed to assess the petitioners in accordance with the legal effect of the partition already in existence.

Ratio Decidendi: Once severance of status and partition by metes and bounds are established, the revenue cannot assess the erstwhile joint family as continuing to exist and must proceed, if at all, only on the basis of the separate interests of the co-sharers.

---