Section 171 partition claim fails where a sole coparcener cannot partition with non-coparceners and no valid division is proved.

A family settlement claimed as a partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act was not recognisable where the HUF had only one male coparcener and the remaining members were the karta's wife and minor daughters. On those facts, a partition between a sole surviving coparcener and non-coparceners could not satisfy the legal requirements of section 171, and the absence of physical division by metes and bounds meant the property was only split into undivided shares. The unregistered memorandum also could not be relied on to prove a completed partition, though the question of later registration was left for limited verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged total partition of the Hindu undivided family could be recognised under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, and whether the absence of physical division by metes and bounds and registration defeated the claim.

Analysis: The arrangement described as a family settlement was treated, in substance, as a claim of partition under section 171. The relevant Hindu family had only one male coparcener, with the others being the karta's wife and minor daughters. On that composition, a partition of the family property between the sole surviving coparcener and the other members could not be recognised as a valid partition for the purpose of section 171. The fact that the immovable property could not be fragmented under the applicable Chandigarh rules did not assist the assessee, because the property could not be divided into separate physical portions and the purported division was only into undivided fractional shares. The memorandum also did not establish a prior oral family arrangement reduced into writing, and in the absence of registration it could not be relied upon as evidence of a completed partition. The limited plea that a later registration might relate back was left for verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The claim of total partition was not recognisable under section 171 on the facts of the case, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded on the main issue. The registration question was remitted only for limited verification.

Final Conclusion: The order of the first appellate authority was reversed on the central issue of partition, and the Assessing Officer's view was restored, subject only to verification of the alleged later registration.

Ratio Decidendi: A sole surviving coparcener of a Hindu undivided family cannot effect a valid partition under section 171 between himself and members who are not coparceners, and a family settlement cannot be accepted as a partition unless it satisfies the legal requirements governing partition and admissibility of the instrument relied upon.

---