Hindu undivided family partition requires cogent proof; section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not cause automatic disruption.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not itself cause an automatic disruption of a Hindu undivided family on the death of a male member; the family continues unless there is a clear volition to separate. A claim of actual partition must therefore be proved with cogent objective evidence. Here, affidavits from coparceners were found insufficient and the requested material was not produced, so the alleged partition was not established. The assessee remained bound to prove a valid partition and failed to do so.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had proved a valid partition of the property, and whether section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 brought about an automatic disruption of the Hindu undivided family on the death of the karta.

Analysis: The claim of actual partition was not supported by objective evidence; the affidavits filed by the coparceners were insufficient, and the material called for by the Wealth-tax Officer was not produced. On the legal question, the authorities relied on by the parties were read to mean that section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not, by itself, bring about an automatic disruption of the Hindu undivided family on the death of a male member. The right of the female heir is recognised, but the family does not cease to exist without volition to separate. The assessee therefore continued to bear the burden of proving an actual partition.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish partition, and no automatic disruption of the Hindu undivided family occurred under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not itself effect an automatic disruption of a Hindu undivided family, and a claim of partition must be proved by cogent evidence.

---