https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276966 The Court held that the 1834 deed effectively converted the undivided family property into divided ownership without the necessity of physical partition. The deed's language indicated a clear intention to change the property's status and establish separate ownership among family members. The Court rejected the argument that an actual partition was required for the division of ownership. Emphasizing the distinction between the division of right and division of property, the Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, dismissing the appeal with costs. en-us Sat, 17 Nov 1866 00:00:00 +0553 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:55:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276966 The Court held that the 1834 deed effectively converted the undivided family property into divided ownership without the necessity of physical partition. The deed's language indicated a clear intention to change the property's status and establish separate ownership among family members. The Court rejected the argument that an actual partition was required for the division of ownership. Emphasizing the distinction between the division of right and division of property, the Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, dismissing the appeal with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 17 Nov 1866 00:00:00 +0553 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276966