He had two wives, two sons, two daughters and a nephew.
The appellant was a Pawaidar of the erstwhile State of Rewa Vindhya Pradesh under the Rewa State Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935.
After the remand the assessing authority held that every shareholder had separate account and made separate realisations and was in possession of his or her respective share, in other words, it was found that the partition had been acted upon.
To his eldest son Kr.
Board of Revenue.
The appellant gave to his elder daughter Kiran Kumari.
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.
Lal Mrigendra Singh the appellant gave for maintenance Rs.
The appellant has purported throughout in the document to make an arrangement by which he was giving the income for maintenance to the various members of the family.
23,053/ in accordance with the annual cess of the villages described in the list.
The High Court was of the view that the document dated December 30 1949 did number 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.
The appellant went up in appeal to the Commissioner who made a direction that he be given an opportunity to produce evidence and the assessment should be made after companysideration of the evidence.
34,072/ in accordance with the annual cess of 128 items of properties described in the list.
The Board upheld the order of the assessing authority and came to the companyclusion that partition had been duly effected by the registered deed.
4,003/ in accordance with the annual cess of properties in the villages described in the list.
5,173/ and to his younger daughter Manorma Devi Rs.
It was recited in the deed that according to the family usage appellants younger son Kr.
He similarly gave to his nephew Lal Dhirendra Singh Rs.
By a deed dated December 30, 1949, the appellant made an arrangement about the payment of income to the family members.
Towards the companycluding portion of this document this is what was stated Whereas both of my sons and both of my daughters are minors, I will look after the listed properties myself, and I shall keep separate accounts of the income and expenditure as regards these listed properties and I shall get the mutation of the above mentioned village in the government records.
The State filed a revision petition to the.
Lal Mrigendra Singh would be entitled to those amounts.
For himself the appellant kept what he called the remaining portion of Rs.
It was further provided that after the death of his wife his eldest son Kr.
The Board referred the following four questions to the High Court for its opinion on an, application made by the State as well as on its own motion.
Grover, J. These three appeals by special leave are from a companymon 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.
