9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the entire property which belongs to all the sharers. His stand has been rejected by all the assessing authorities including the Tribunal. He died during the pendency of the second appeal before the Tribunal. His son, the present petitioner, has been substituted in his place. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner asked for certain questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal to be referred to the High Court under section 29(2) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Four questions were framed. The Tribunal rejected questions Nos. (2) and (3) but referred questions Nos. (1) and (4) which run thus : " (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in 1949, and the document was executed acknowledging the previous partition. In fact, a list of properties was appended to the document to show that all the properties were separately allotted to the members of the joint family in the partition of 1949. Law is well-settled that a document recording an acknowledgement of previous partition is not compulsorily registrable. (See Brajamohan Das v. Radhamohan Das, and Deo Chand v. Shiv Ram). Question No. (1) must, therefore, be answered in the negative, that is to say, a document recording acknowledgment of previous partition does not require registration. Question No. (2) is one of fact, and in the manner it has been worded we would have refrained from answering the same, as it is not a q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered document is not admissible in evidence. In view of our answer to question No. (1) that the unregistered document does not require registration, the Tribunal is to examine all materials and record a finding regarding partition. Unfortunately, question No. (2) is not so framed. The point for consideration is whether we have power to reframe question No. (2) so that the Tribunal would reconsider all the evidence relating to the partition. The High Court can reframe questions under section 29(5) of the Act which runs thus : " If the High Court is not satisfied that the statements in a case referred under this section are sufficient to enable it to determine the question raised thereby, the court may refer the case back to the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
