Ramamurti, J.- The petitioner in T.C. No. 206 of 1963 got certain properties under the will of his father Chockalinga Mudaliar dated 8th February, 1923, Chockalinga Mudaliar died shortly thereafter, and from the moment of his death, Srinivasa Mudaliar (Petitioner in T.C. No. 206 of 1963) was enjoying the properties bequeathed to him under the will aforesaid. On 2nd April, 1954 he entered into a family arrangement-though styled a partition deed-under which he made certain provisions for his sons, and daughters and also secured some property for himself. The Agricultural income-tax Officer (for the years 1958-60) accepted this partition arrangement for the purpose of composition. The Commissioner of Income-tax exercising his powers suo motu under section 34, revised the assessment for the aforesaid three years and assessed Srinivasa Mudaliar on the footing that he must be deemed to be the sole owner of all the properties bequeathed to him under the will of his father. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the petitioner (Srinivasa Mudaliar) has no right to relinguish his life interest in any of the properties, bequeathed to him under the will of his father, that he is bound to enjoy the Same till his lifetime and that rights would accrue to his sons only after the lifetime of Srinivasa Mudaliar. Even though separate bank accounts were opened and separate insurance policies were taken in the names of his sons and separate kists were also paid in their names, the Commissioner was not inclined to accept the partition deed as a true and genuine arrangement and given effect to. We are wholly unable to accept this view of the Commissioner either on the question of the right of Srinivasa Mudaliar to relinguish his rights under the will or on the question as to whether the family arrangement was a genuine one and was acted upon. We are clearly of the opinion that it is open to a life tenant under the will to accelerate the vesting of the possession of the estate in the remainderman and as a part of the bargain to secure for himself some portion of the property absolutely. We see nothing in the general principle of law which would prevent the life tenant and the remainderman entering into such an arrangement. We see nothing in the general principle of law which would prevent the life tenant and the remainderman entering into such an arrangement. We are equally of the opinion that the view taken by the Commissioner on the question of fact about the genuineness of the partition deed is wholly wrong and opposed to the conduct of the parties and the documentary evidence. The fact that a partition arrangement creating estates in severally is true, can be established only by proving that the several parties to the partition took possession of the property and enjoyed the income separately. In this case, there is ample evidence to show that the several members were in receipt of the income, the opening of the bank accounts separately and the payment of kists in the separate names, in our opinion, afford ample evidence to come to the conclusion that the partition arrangement was a genuine one We are satisfied that there was absolutely no ground for the Commissioner to exercise the powers of revision under section 34. The order of the Commissioner is, therefore, set aside. The Original Order of assessment passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer will be restored. There will be no order as to costs. V.S. -------------- Petition allowed.