https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60924 A family settlement claimed as a partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act was not recognisable where the HUF had only one male coparcener and the remaining members were the karta's wife and minor daughters. On those facts, a partition between a sole surviving coparcener and non-coparceners could not satisfy the legal requirements of section 171, and the absence of physical division by metes and bounds meant the property was only split into undivided shares. The unregistered memorandum also could not be relied on to prove a completed partition, though the question of later registration was left for limited verification. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:26:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60924 A family settlement claimed as a partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act was not recognisable where the HUF had only one male coparcener and the remaining members were the karta's wife and minor daughters. On those facts, a partition between a sole surviving coparcener and non-coparceners could not satisfy the legal requirements of section 171, and the absence of physical division by metes and bounds meant the property was only split into undivided shares. The unregistered memorandum also could not be relied on to prove a completed partition, though the question of later registration was left for limited verification. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60924