Unequal partition of Hindu joint family property is not a gift under estate duty law absent real transfer between distinct persons.

Unequal allotment on partition of Hindu joint family property is not a gift or disposition inter vivos for estate duty purposes unless there is a real transfer or conveyance between distinct persons. Sections 9 and 27 of the Estate Duty Act apply only to property taken under a disposition made by the deceased that operates as an immediate gift, and the word "otherwise" in section 9 is read ejusdem generis with the specified modes of transfer. Because each coparcener has an antecedent title and partition merely converts joint enjoyment into enjoyment in severalty, no donor-donee relationship arises from unequal partition. The alleged difference in shares is therefore not includible in the estate as a gift.

---

---

Issues: Whether the difference arising from unequal allotment on partition of Hindu joint family property constituted a gift includible under section 9 read with section 27 of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: Section 9 applies only where property is taken under a disposition made by the deceased purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos by transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, settlement, or a like transaction, and section 27 extends that treatment to dispositions in favour of relatives. The Court held that the word "otherwise" in section 9 must be read ejusdem generis and that the statutory scheme requires a real disposition inter vivos. A partition of joint family property does not amount to a transfer or conveyance, because each coparcener has an antecedent title and partition merely converts joint enjoyment into enjoyment in severalty. Unequal allotment on partition does not create a donor-donee relationship, nor does it amount to a disposition in the sense contemplated by sections 9 and 27.

Conclusion: The unequal partition did not constitute a gift or disposition within sections 9 and 27, and the reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The amount representing the alleged difference in shares was not includible in the estate as a gift, and the assessees contention succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A partition of Hindu joint family property, even if unequal, is not a gift or disposition inter vivos for estate duty purposes unless it involves a real transfer or conveyance between distinct persons.

---