Partition of HUF requires objective proof; section 6 succession rights do not automatically disrupt the family unit.

A claim of partition in a Hindu undivided family must be supported by credible objective evidence; affidavits alone, without documentary material such as partition records, assessment details, rent records or municipal extracts, are insufficient to prove severance of status or division of property. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 protects the succession rights of heirs but does not by itself dissolve the family unit or cause automatic disruption of the HUF on the death of the karta. On these findings, the asserted partition was not established either on fact or by operation of law, and the property continued to be assessable in the hands of the family.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee had proved an actual partition of the family property; and (ii) 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.

Issue (i): whether the assessee had proved an actual partition of the family property

Analysis: The assessee relied mainly on affidavits of coparceners and asserted an oral partition later recorded in writing. However, the material called for by the taxing authority, including documentary proof of partition, assessment particulars, rent records, and municipal extracts, was not produced. The claimed partition was not supported by objective evidence, and the affidavits were treated as insufficient to establish the asserted severance of status or division of the property.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to prove an actual partition.

Issue (ii): 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 provision and the case-law considered were understood to protect the rights of female heirs and to fix their inherited interest, but not to compel a dissolution of the family unit without volition. The legal fiction under section 6 could not be extended to hold that the family ceased to exist merely because an interest devolved by succession. On that reasoning, the death of the karta did not by itself effect an automatic disruption of the family.

Conclusion: Section 6 did not cause an automatic disruption of the hindu undivided family.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's claim of partition was not established either on facts or by operation of law, so the property remained liable to be assessed in the hands of the family.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of partition must be proved by credible objective evidence, and section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not by itself bring about an automatic disruption of a hindu undivided family on the death of a member.

---