Partition of joint family property is not a disposition for estate duty, even when the shares are unequal.

A partition of Hindu joint family property, even if unequal in result, does not amount to a disposition of property under section 27(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 because it does not transfer an interest between coparceners; it merely changes joint enjoyment into separate enjoyment. On that reasoning, the differential arising from a deceased coparcener receiving less than the value of his share cannot be treated as property passing by disposition in favour of relatives, and it is not includible in the principal value of the estate. The concept of "disposition" was treated consistently with earlier gift-tax and estate duty authorities holding that partition is not a gift or disposition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a partition between a deceased coparcener and his son, under which the deceased received less than the value of his share, amounted to a disposition of property in favour of relatives within section 27(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, so as to justify inclusion of the differential amount in the principal value of the estate.

Analysis: The document executed by the coparceners was construed as a deed of partition ending the joint family status. A partition does not involve a transfer of interest from one coparcener to another; it merely converts joint enjoyment into enjoyment in severalty. An unequal partition does not, by itself, convert the arrangement into a relinquishment or disposition within the meaning of section 27(1). The meaning of "disposition" under the Estate Duty Act was treated consistently with the corresponding concept considered in earlier decisions under the Gift-tax Act and the Estate Duty Act, where partition was held not to amount to a disposition or gift.

Conclusion: The arrangement was not a disposition of property within section 27(1), and the amount representing the difference could not be included in the estate of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: A partition of joint family property, even if unequal in result, is not a disposition of property for estate duty purposes because it does not effect a transfer of interest between coparceners.

---