Mitakshara partition rules: account entries and separate living did not prove partition, family arrangement, or valid gift.

Under Mitakshara law, a female member who is not a coparcener cannot demand partition of joint family property, and separate living or an account entry does not by itself establish partition without evidence of division of assets, liabilities, and defined shares. The claim of a family arrangement also failed because no such case was raised before the income-tax authorities and no bona fide antecedent dispute or settlement of doubtful claims was shown. The plea of gift was likewise untenable, as no valid gift by the karta of joint family property within permissible limits was established. The interest payments were therefore not justified on this basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum of Rs. 45,000 shown as transferred to the widow of the karta could be treated as a valid partition, a family arrangement, or a valid gift so as to justify allowance of the interest payments claimed by the assessee.

Analysis: Under the Mitakshara law applicable to the parties, a female member who was not a coparcener had no right to demand partition of joint family property. A mere separate living or an entry in the account books did not amount to a partition, particularly where there was no evidence of any division of assets and liabilities or definition of shares. The claim of family arrangement also failed because no such case had been set up before the income-tax authorities and, in any event, no genuine antecedent dispute or bona fide settlement of doubtful claims was shown. The plea of gift was equally untenable, as it had not been the assessee's case before the authorities and no valid gift by the karta of joint family property within the permissible limits was established.

Conclusion: The transaction was neither a valid partition nor a family arrangement nor a valid gift, and the disallowance of the interest amounts was in law against the assessee.

---