A.D.V Reddy, J.:— In a suit, O.S No. 47/54, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenali, filed by one Tatavarthi Raja Syamala, widow of Sitharama-rao, one of the three sons of one Nagapotharao, there was a compromise, under which she was tentatively allotted certain items of property, and as per the arrangement she was allowed to enjoy the income from the property, paying taxes thereon pending the suit. The suit finally ended in a final decree passed on March 16, 1961. For the assessment year 1959-60, when the assessment was being made on the joint family, the assessee claimed that there was a partition even on April 1, 1956, and she was allotted certain properties for her enjoyment and, therefore, an order under s. 25A of the Indian I.T Act, 1922, should be made declaring that there was a partition of the joint family as on April 1, 1956, when the compromise memo was filed into court. This was rejected by the ITO as well as by the AAC and by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence this reference.
2. Under s. 25A of the Indian I.T Act, 1922, a mere division in status is not enough to claim the benefit.
3. The properties should have been partitioned among various members of the joint family in due proportions, i.e, by metes and bounds. In this case, admittedly, there was no partial partition as such and there was no decree recognising the same. Even the memo filed into court by the defendants in the suit says that they are willing tentatively to deliver possession to the plaintiff in the suit of the properties mentioned in the schedule, fetching a rent equal to ¼th share. To this memo, in reply the plaintiff had filed memo accepting the arrangement; therein she states that “this selection shall continue till final decree in the suit is passed and shall be without prejudice to the contentions of either side”. This shows that this was purely a temporary arrangement that they had come to, and the actual final decree giving her the rights in the property was passed only on March 16, 1961. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a partition among the members in definite portions. This arrangement certainly would not have given her a right to alienate even her interest in the property, which she would otherwise be able to, in case there was a decree in her favour. We, therefore, hold that there was a partition only on March 16, 1961, as held by the Tribunal. This reference is answered accordingly. No costs.