Genuine partition deed and no locus for revenue to challenge allotment to an alleged non-member.

A tribunal's finding that a partition deed was genuine, based on accepted explanation and evidence, was treated as a finding of fact and therefore did not raise a question of law. The claim of partial partition was upheld. The further objection that Smt. Radha Devi may have remained a member of the joint family after the earlier partition did not invalidate the later partition: even an allotment to a person said to be not entitled to a share did not make the partition void ab initio, and the revenue had no locus to challenge it on that basis. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of partial partition with effect from 31 March 1965. (ii) Whether a reference should be called for on the question whether Smt. Radha Devi continued to remain a member of the joint family after the partition in 1952.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of partial partition with effect from 31 March 1965.

Analysis: The explanation for the discrepancy between the date of the deed and the date of purchase of the stamp paper was accepted by the appellate authority and affirmed by the Tribunal. The finding that the partition deed was genuine and not sham rested on appreciation of evidence and the acceptance of the assessee's explanation. Such a finding did not raise any question of law.

Conclusion: The claim of partial partition was rightly allowed and the answer to the reference was in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a reference should be called for on the question whether Smt. Radha Devi continued to remain a member of the joint family after the partition in 1952.

Analysis: The objection based on Radha Devi's alleged entitlement to a share did not affect the validity of the partial partition. Even if a share had been allotted to a person not entitled to it, the partition was not thereby void ab initio, and the department had no locus standi to challenge it on that footing. The proposed question therefore did not require a reference.

Conclusion: No reference was called for on the proposed additional question and the applications were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the main reference, and the department's applications for a further reference were rejected as unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal's finding that a partition deed is genuine, based on accepted explanation and evidence, is a finding of fact raising no question of law; and the revenue cannot challenge a partition as void ab initio merely because a share was allotted to a person said to be not entitled to it.

---