Oral transfer of immovable property for dower debt requires registration; without it, title and tax liability remain with the transferor.

An oral transfer of immovable property of substantial value in satisfaction of a dower debt was ineffective because such a transaction amounted to a Hiba Biliwaz and required a registered instrument; without registration, title did not pass. As the intended transfer failed, the property continued to belong to the transferor, so section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 did not alter the position and the income remained assessable in the assessee's hands. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, with the alleged transfer held invalid and the property income held taxable in the transferor's assessable income.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether there could, in law, be an oral transfer of immovable property in lieu of a dower debt. (ii) Whether, if such transfer was possible, the income from the property was liable to be included in assessable income under section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether there could, in law, be an oral transfer of immovable property in lieu of a dower debt.

Analysis: A transfer of immovable property of substantial value in satisfaction of dower debt could not be effected orally. Such a transaction amounted to a Hiba Biliwaz and required a registered document. In the absence of such a document, the intended transfer was ineffective and title to the property did not pass.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee; no valid oral transfer was effected.

Issue (ii): Whether, if such transfer was possible, the income from the property was liable to be included in assessable income under section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Since the intended transfer failed for want of a registered instrument, the property continued to belong to the assessee. In that situation, there was no occasion to invoke section 16(3), and the income from the property remained assessable in the assessee's hands as before the ineffective transfer.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue; the income was includible in the assessee's assessable income.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, holding that the alleged oral transfer was ineffective and that the property income continued to be taxable in the assessee's hands.

Ratio Decidendi: An oral transfer of immovable property in satisfaction of dower debt is ineffective without a registered document, and where title does not pass, the income from the property remains assessable in the transferor's hands.

---