Partition versus gift in family property distribution turns on clear intention, not presumptions about hotchpot.

A father's distribution of self-acquired property among his sons is not treated as a partition or blending into the family hotchpot unless a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon separate ownership is proved. Equal division, account entries, and setting aside amounts for other family members do not by themselves establish partition, because the transaction must be tested on the facts showing intention. Applying the Supreme Court principle that no presumption arises in favour of either gift or partition, the disbursement was characterised as a gift rather than a partition, and section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was held applicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deceased's disbursement of Rs. 90,005 among his five sons was a gift attracting section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, or a partition arising from blending of self-acquired property with the family hotchpot.

Analysis: The decisive question was the deceased's intention. Blending of self-acquired property with the family stock requires a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon separate rights, and such intention cannot be presumed merely because the property was distributed equally among sons. The account entries, the single-day distribution, and the setting apart of amounts for the daughter and for the deceased himself were found consistent with a gift as much as with any theory of partition. The principle stated in the Supreme Court authority was applied that there is no presumption that a father intended either a gift or a partition; the transaction must be tested from the facts proving intention. The contrary Bombay view, which proceeded on presumptions of hotchpot and partition, was held not to represent the correct legal position in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Conclusion: The disbursement did not amount to a partition. It amounted to a gift, and section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was applicable.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the accountable person and in favour of the revenue, with costs awarded accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A father's distribution of self-acquired property among his sons cannot be treated as a partition or blending into the family hotchpot unless a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon separate ownership is proved; absent such proof, the transaction is a gift for estate duty purposes.

---