RAJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals by special leave are from a common judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh In the reference made by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, under Section 24(1) of the United Provinces Agricultural Income tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act III of 1949), hereinafter called the "Act" (as modified and extended to Vindhya Pradesh ) arising out of the orders made by the Board relating to the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54.

(2.) The appellant was a Pawaidar of the erstwhile State of Rewa (Vindhya Pradesh) under the Rewa State Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935. He had two wives, two sons, two daughters and a nephew. By a deed dated December 30, 1949, the appellant made an arrangement about the payment of income to the family members. It was recited in the deed that according to the family usage appellants younger son Kr. Lal Gambhir Singh was entitled maintenance but the maintenance which he would get according to the custom would be insufficient and, therefore, he would be given a sum of Rs. 8,175/- as maintenance in accordance with the annual cess of the thirty five items of properties described in the list attached to the document. To his eldest son Kr. Lal Mrigendra Singh the appellant gave for maintenance Rs. 34,072/- in accordance with the annual cess of 128 items of properties described in the list. For himself the appellant kept what he called "the remaining portion of Rs. 23,053/- " in accordance with the annual cess of the villages described in the list. Out of his own share he purported to give to his elder wife for life Rs. 3,170/- and 1o the younger wife Rs. 3,122/-. It was further provided that after the death of his wife his eldest son Kr. Lal Mrigendra Singh would be entitled to those amounts. The appellant gave to his elder daughter Kiran Kumari. Rs. 5,173/- and to his younger daughter Manorma Devi Rs. 4,003/- in accordance with the annual cess of properties in the villages described in the list. He similarly gave to his nephew Lal Dhirendra Singh Rs. 811/-. Towards the concluding portion of this document this is what was stated:

(3.) The High Court was of the view that the document dated December 30 1949 did not bring about any partition of the pawai held by the appellant and although it was stated in the document that the appellant was making a partition and providing for the management of his property, what he actually did was to distribute and make provision for the maintenance of members of his family. This is what the conclusion of the High Court was :