Genuine partial partition and revision limitation: HC held that delayed suo motu revisional orders are time-barred and invalid.

A partial partition of Hindu undivided family properties confined to agricultural lands was held genuine where the properties were actually divided, registry was transferred, and the allotted lands were separately managed and assessed; continued common residence did not by itself make the arrangement a sham or a settlement. The court also held that a statutory limitation period for revision governs the completion of the revisional power, so a suo motu revisional order passed after expiry of that period was time-barred. The impugned revisional order failed on both merits and limitation and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the partial partition of the Hindu undivided family properties was genuine and could be treated as a partition rather than a settlement; (ii) Whether the Commissioner's suo motu revisional order was barred by limitation under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the partial partition of the Hindu undivided family properties was genuine and could be treated as a partition rather than a settlement.

Analysis: The Act permitted a partial partition under the relevant personal law. A partition confined to agricultural lands was not, by itself, proof of a sham transaction or a device to defeat revenue. The existence of a common residence of family members did not negate genuineness where the properties had in fact been divided, registry had been transferred, and the allotted lands were separately managed and assessed. The transaction also could not be treated as a settlement, because the daughters had a pre-existing right to a share and the wife's position did not convert the arrangement into a settlement merely because she was allotted lands.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's finding that the partition was not genuine and was a settlement was erroneous and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's suo motu revisional order was barred by limitation under the Act.

Analysis: The limitation provision governing revision was held to regulate the Commissioner's exercise of revisional power, not merely the initiation of proceedings. In a case of suo motu revision, the Commissioner had to complete the exercise within the prescribed period. On the facts, the revisional order was made after expiry of that period, and the authority could not rely on the date of initiation to save the order.

Conclusion: The suo motu revisional order was time-barred and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order could not stand either on merits or on limitation, so the assessee succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory limitation on revision governs the actual exercise of revisional power, and a genuine partial partition is not invalid merely because it is confined to some family properties or because the family members continue to live together.

---