Partition of joint family property can be recognised when a definite share is accepted and acted upon, even without physical division.

A partition arrangement was treated as effective where an oral division was followed by a memorandum, confirming sale deeds and subsequent conduct showing recognition of a definite share. The key point was that the relevant test is not confined to physical division; it is whether the coparcener received a definite share that was accepted and acted upon. On those facts, Shri S.M. Raut was treated as having separated from the Hindu undivided family in 1960, and the partial partition was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee established that there was a partial partition of the joint family properties in 1960 and that Shri S.M. Raut had become separate from the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The record showed an oral partition followed by a memorandum and subsequent sale deeds in which Shri S.M. Raut figured as a confirming party, indicating recognition of a separate and definite share. The entries and later conduct were treated as supporting the conclusion that the arrangement had been acted upon. On the facts, the relevant test was not merely severance of status, but whether the member concerned had obtained a definite share that was accepted and given effect to.

Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in proving that Shri S.M. Raut had separated from the Hindu undivided family in 1960 and the partial partition was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a co-parcener is shown to have received a definite share under a partition arrangement that is subsequently acted upon, the partition cannot be rejected merely because physical division is disputed.

---