1970 (2) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax as karta of an undivided family up to the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee had the following sources of income which were being taken into account : (a) house property, (b) individual business as a contractor, (c) share income from Messrs. Rasiklal & Co. in respect of grocery and stationery business ; and (d) share income from Messrs. H. B. Pandey & Co. This is transport business. The joint family consisted of Popatlal Devram (party No. 1 to the memorandum of partition drawn up on 1st May, 1957), his two sons, Bhagwanlal Bopatlal and Rasiklal Popatlal (parties Nos. 2 and 3), and his wife, Premu Bai (party No. 4). The assessee effected an oral partition on April 1, 1957, and the regular memorandum evidencing oral parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the following observation : " We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of a registered deed conveying the immovable properties to the two sons and the wife and in the absence of the contract business being included in the partition, there had not been a valid, effective and complete partition between the members of the appellant Hindu undivided family and the authorities below were right in rejecting the claim under section 25A." Against the Tribunal's order, a reference was sought under section 66(1) of the Act. On its dismissal, an application for reference under section 66(2) was filed in the High Court. Four questions were framed in the application for reference before the High Court. They are : (a) Whether by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....randum dated May 1, 1957, is compulsorily registrable. Law is well settled that a partition of the joint family properties can be effected by an oral agreement irrespective of the value of the property. It is not being disputed that joint family properties were partitioned as enumerated in the memorandum by an oral agreement on April 1, 1957. The partition was legal and valid. The memorandum executed on May 1, 1957, merely recorded the factum of partition which had already taken place on April 1, 1957. But itself it does not create any new jural relationship amongst the parties. The disruption of the joint family with partition by metes and bounds in respect of properties covered by the memorandum took place on April 1, 1957. Since then, th....