MANCHANDA, J. - (1.) THIS is a consolidated case stated under section 66(1) relating to the assessments for the years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52 made upon Sri Purshottam Das in the status of a Hindu undivided family.
(2.) THE questions referred are: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was partial partition with respect to zamindari property ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the issue of notice by the State Government to the members of the family separately for compensation of zamindari property, mutation in khewats and separate possession of cultivated lands constitutes evidence for finding that the zamindari property had been partitioned ? 3. Whether the partition of house properties can be effected by the division of the rental receipts in the account books and by naming the six members of the family in the receipts issued to the tenants and recording the names of all the six persons in the records of the municipal Board ? or Whether a division by metes and bounds is necessary ? The material facts are that the assessee constituted a Hindu undivided family consisting of Purushottam Das, his wife and mother and three sons. It derived income from its zamindari properties, share from Government securities, money-lending and grain business, sugar refinery business and house properties. In the present reference we are only concerned with the zamindari and house properties as the three questions set out hereinabove only refer to these two assets of the Hindu undivided family. It would here by convenient to deal first with the facts relating to the zamindari properties separately and to determine the answer to the first two questions before proceeding to the third question. In January, 1948, a suit for partition was brought against Purushottam Das by his wife, mother and sons. A consent decree was passed on the 13th May, 1948. A mutation in respect of the zamindari properties in the names of each of the erstwhile members of the family was duly carried out. In the Agricultural Income-tax Act proceedings ultimately, after a remand by the Supreme Court, it was held by a majority decision of this Court that a partition had taken place and a separate assessment was required to be made on each of the erstwhile members in respect of agricultural income. In addition, at the time of the abolition of zamindari, the State Government recognised this when making payment of compensation to the individual members of the family and the compensation was paid to them individually and not to the family as a whole. In the statement of the case it is stated that the lands cultivated by the family had been allotted and divided by metes and bounds between the six members of the family.
(3.) IN view of this statement which is based on a finding of fact, our answer to question No. 2 cannot be any other than in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, that the zamindari properties had been partitioned. Question No. 1 is not really a question of law and is wholly redundant and therefore does not require an answer.;