SAT PAL BANSAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to this court in this case is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the karta being the sole surviving coparcener could not effect partition of the family property between himself and his wife.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties are agreed that on this matter there is an apparent conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this court, namely, Kundan Lal v. CIT/cwt [1981] 129 ITR 755 and CIT v. Narain Dass Wadhwa [1980] 123 ITR 281. In the former case, it was held that a wife cannot claim partition of the Hindu undivided family as a matter of right but the partition made by the karta was upheld on the ground that there was an earlier partition between the father and his son and as the wife had not given up her share, she was entitled to claim it even later on. On the contrary, in the later case, where the Hindu undivided family consisted of "k", his mother and two sisters, it was held that "k" being a coparcener could claim partition and the partition made by him was upheld. In this case, "k" was the sole coparcener and there being no other person having proprietary interest in the property, partition could not be effected according to the rule laid down in the former case. As it is necessary to resolve the conflict between the two decisions, this case is ordered to be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for referring the same to a larger Bench. JUDGMENT S. P. Goyal, J. (13-8-1986)

(3.) THE question referred to this court in this case is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the karta being the sole surviving coparcener could not effect partition of the family property between himself and his wife. As there was a conflict on this question between the two Division Bench decisions of this court in Kundan Lal v. CIT/cwt [1981] 129 ITR 755 and CIT v. Narain Dass Wadhwa [1980] 123 ITR 281, the case was referred to the Full Bench.