1981 (9) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that since this was only the partition of the HUF properties, there was no element of gift. The GTO held that there should be at least two coparceners to constitute a Mitakshara coparcenary and even though a single male member along with female members can form a HUF, such a HUF cannot effect the partition of its properties. The female members have only a share on partition and they have no right to claim partition. The ancestral property in the hands of the assessee, who is the only coparcener of the HUF at the relevant time, is for all practical purposes at par with self-acquired property. Thus, he held that the partition made by the assessee was a gift made to his wife and children. 2. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt has held that the wife or the minor daughters of a Hindu coparcener would not be entitled to a share on a partition of the properties of the joint family and they would have only a right to maintenance, etc., for which proper provision could be made in the course of any partition that takes place. Where there is no scope for partition, there is no possibility of making a provision therein. In that case, the partition was claimed between the assessee, who was the only coparcener, and his wife and minor daughters. The claim of partition was not accepted. On those facts, the Madras High Court held that, the department was justified in refusing to recognise a partial partition said to have been effected in the family of the assessee in whic....