TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (3) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows: The applicant, Nanjiah Setty, his only son, Gangadhara Setty, and the four sons "through" the latter ori?inally constituted a Hindu undivided family, which owned mainly movable properties in the shape of shares in the limited companies and an item of immovable property. By an instrument dated 1st March, 1956, the members of the family aforesaid declared their intention to remain divided in status from the joint family which was followed up by a registered deed of release dated 15th March, 1956, dividing the properties by metes and bounds. About 1st March, Gangadhara Setty's wife was enceinte. A male child called Lakshminarayanan was subsequently born to Gangadhara S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6,79,050 8,30,289 The value of the immovable property was Rs. 16,500 and it was retained by Nanjiah Setty. For retaining the shares of others he paid cash as under: Rs. Gangadhara Setty (son) ... 1,500 Ramkumar Grandsons Rs. 1,500 each ... 6,000 Giridhar Vijayakumar Kasinath Granddaughters: Shyamala & Srivalli Rs. 375 each ... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) that the intention of the parties was to divide the properties in accordance with their respective legal rights and not unequally; (iv) that for retaining the immovable property, the assessee gave the value of the half share which Gangadhara was entitled, i.e., Rs. 16,300. (v) that the assessee had not retained any larger share for any contingency; (vi) that there was no necessity to realign the shares because a grandson had been born to the assessee, the realignment becoming necessary only if there was after-born son to the assessee; (vii) that the grandson, Lakshminarayanan, had no enforceable right against the assessee; (viii) even though there was no necessity for reopening the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) that the settlement deed of 25th October, 1957, conferred no new rights upon Lakshminarayanan but only recognised a pre-existing one; (v) that Lakshminarayanan got his properties under the aforesaid deed by virtue of right by birth in the family and not by a gift; (vi) that the assessee was under the legal duty to give a share to Lakshminarayanan and having failed to do that, made good by giving a share, which he would have been entitled to by a settlement deed and no gift had been made; and lastly (vii) that if there was a reopening of the partition it would not be open to the assessee to contend that all the properties allotted to him at the prior partition would remain with him and the minor should be as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... good the share due to Lakshminarayanan. The assessee has given a sum of Rs. 1,46,500 to minor Lakshminarayanan in the form of shares and cash entirely from out of his share, for which, he (assessee) has not received any consideration. It is true that in return for receiving the amount and shares in question, Lakshminarayanan is required not to claim any share from his father, brothers and sisters. In other words, the real beneficiaries under the deed dated October 25, 1957, are Gangadhara, Ramkumar, Giridhar, Vijayakumar, Kasinath, Shyamala and Srivalli. Sri. V. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel for the assessee, is right in his contention that approached from the point of view of the transferee the concerned transaction amounts to a t....