9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1977-78 held that since the partition deed is not registered the partition is not accepted. Thus he made the assessments on the family. 2. The assessee appealed to the AAC. He referred to an earlier partition deed dt. 2nd Aug., 1974 where agricultural lands have been partitioned and in that deed it was mentioned that the urban properties will be partitioned in due course. As per the deed dt. 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed dt. 20th March, 1976 in respect of urban immovable properties being an unregistered one, partition cannot be accepted. The AAC was wrong in directing the ITO to accept the partition. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly urged that it is a memorandum of partition and it does not require registration. Further, apart from the deed dt. 20th March, 1976 there is evidence to prove the partition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not given any finding whether the deed dt. 20th March, 1976 is a memorandum recording the factum of partition or whether partition of urban properties took place under this deed. He has also not considered another important aspect, viz., even if the deed dt. 20th March, 1976 being unregistered is inadmissible evidence for ascertaining the terms of partition, factum of partition can be proved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shares. As pointed out by Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in Rukmabai vs. Laxminarayan AIR 1960 SC 335, doubtless, an unregistered document can effect separation in status." In the same decision they have referred to a Full Bench decision of the same Court in Kanna Reddy vs. Venkata Raddy AIR 1965 AP 274 (FB). After referring to that decision it was observed as under: "As pointed out by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
