( 1 ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has staged a case and referred the following question of law, under S. 64 (1) Estate Duty act, 1953, for the opinion of this Court :" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 49,545 assessed as property passing on the death in terms of Expln. 2 to S. 2 (15) of the Estate Duty act 1953 was not includible in the taxable estate of the deseased and that theie was neither a gift nor disposition or transfer whan the deceased got an unequal share than what he would have received as his rightful share when the family arrangement was effected on 16-10-1964 ? " ( 2 ) THE proceedings relate to the assessment to estate duty consequent on the death of Shantaram Shankar Kalagatgi, who, passed away on 21st-Octr. , 1964. He was a Karta of a Hindu undivided farmly and on that capacity was a partner in certain firms and the income therefrom was being assessed to income tax in that status By means of a family arrangement evidenced by a deed dt. 16th Octr. 1964, he effected a partition of the interest of the HUF in the said firms among the members of the HUF consisting of himself, his wife and two sons, after making provision 'for his unmarried daughters. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that the deceased got an unequal share as the value of the assets allotted to 'him was' less than what he would have been entitled to if they had been divided equally. In the deed of family arrangement the entire assets to be divided was valued at Rs. 2,77,523-26. An amount aggregating to '. Rs. 70,000 was alotted to the wife and daughters. Out of the balance the two 'sons were allotted Rs. 90,000 each and Rs. 27,573-26 was allowed to the deceased The assistant Controller estimated the net value of the assets at Rs. 3,17,025 and on the, basis that the 1/4th share of the deceased would be Rs. 79,256 and: he had got only Rs. 29,711 (including the share off good will in a firm) determined the deficit at Rs. 49,545. He held that this was the value of the interest relinquished at the expense of the deceased within the meaning of expln. 3,17,025 and on the, basis that the 1/4th share of the deceased would be Rs. 79,256 and: he had got only Rs. 29,711 (including the share off good will in a firm) determined the deficit at Rs. 49,545. He held that this was the value of the interest relinquished at the expense of the deceased within the meaning of expln. 2 to Sec. 2 (15) of the Act and included the same in the texable 'estate under Section 9. ( 3 ) ON appeal by the accountable person, this inclusion was-contested. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty accepted the contention that by the partition effected under the family arrangement there was neither a gift nqr any disposition merely because the division was unequal and the difference could nqt be included u/ s. 9 and directed the exclusion of the said amount. He relied upon the decision of the, Andhra, Pradesh high Court in Cherukuri Iswaramma v. Controller of Estate Duty ,69 ITR 109 ( 4 ) ON appeal by the Department to the, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the view taken by the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty wa,s upheld. The Tribunal held that there was neither a gift nor a disposition or transfer, when the deceased got an unequal share when the family arrangement was effected on 16th Octr. 1964, and there was no, extinguishment of any right by him in fayour of the members of the, family. It referred to the ruling of the ' Andhra, Pradesh High Court above mentioned and the, ruling of the Gujarat High Court in Kantilal Trikamlal v. Controller of estate Duty ,74 ITR 353. in this behalfe. ( 5 ) BEFORE us, for the Department, reliance has been placed on the decision of the High Court of Madras in Ranganayaki Ammal v. Controller of Estate Duty, 88 ITR 96. in which its earlier decision in Velliammal Achi v. Controller of Estate Duty ,73 ITR 806. was- followed and the decision of the Punjab High Court in controller of Estate Duty v. Jaigopal Mehra, 85 ITR 175. and it was urged that there was a disposition within the meaning of Expln. 2 to S. 2 (15) read with S. 27. For the accountable person reliance was placed on the rulings relied upon by the Tribunal and the rulings of the Supreme, court in Commr, of Gift Tax v. Getti Chettiar, 82 ITR 599. and it was urged that there was a disposition within the meaning of Expln. 2 to S. 2 (15) read with S. 27. For the accountable person reliance was placed on the rulings relied upon by the Tribunal and the rulings of the Supreme, court in Commr, of Gift Tax v. Getti Chettiar, 82 ITR 599. and Controller of Estate duty, A. P. v. Karcharla Keshava Rao, 89 ITR 261. and that of the High Court of gujarat in Controller of Estate Duty v. Chander Lal, (1973) 35 Taxation 132 Sec. III and it was concontended that by an unequal partition, there is no disposition or gift. ( 6 ) IT is now well settled that a partition in a, Hindu undivided faniily involves nq transfer or conveyance of property from one member to another and it is a process by which joint enjoyment is transformed into an enjoyment in severalty. So long as the jqint family continues, nq member of the faniily can predicate that he has a particular share or claim that a particular property belongs to him. A division in status can be brought about by an unequivocal declaration to become divided in status and concurrence of the other members of the family is not necessary. The share of the member gets crystalised on such declaration and communication to the other members. The actual division of the assets is only an adjustment of the antecedent right of the members. It is only a satisfaction of the rights rather than an extinguishment of any right of any member or conferring or transferring any right to any other members. ' the expression disposition involves an element of transfer of an interest in property from one, person to another and such an element of transfer is absent in the conception of a partition in an undivided Hindu family. This was the view taken by Bhagawati, CJ. in Kantilal Trikamlal (2) and we are in respectful agreement with, the same. ' the expression disposition involves an element of transfer of an interest in property from one, person to another and such an element of transfer is absent in the conception of a partition in an undivided Hindu family. This was the view taken by Bhagawati, CJ. in Kantilal Trikamlal (2) and we are in respectful agreement with, the same. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in Getti Chettiar's case (6) while construing the expression in S. 2 (XXIV) of the Gift Tax Act held that it had been used as one of the modes of transfer of property and a partition in a, Hindu undivided family cannot be considered "either as a disposition or conveyance or assignment or settlement or delivery or payment or alienation within the meaning of those expressions in S. 2 (XXIV)". In Controller of estate Duty, A. P. v. Karcharla Keshava Rao which arose under the estate Duty Act, the Supreme Court while considering the, expression disposition' in S. 24 of that Act, upheld the contention of the Department that a partition in a Hindu undivided family did not amount to a, disposition. The observations in Getti Chettiar's case (6) were quoted and it was held that there was no, reason why the same interpretation should not be, placed in regard to, the expression disposition' in S. 24 of the Estate, Duty Act. The High Court of Madras in Ranganayakammal's case (3) when reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in Getti Chettiar's case (6) was of the opinion that they did not apply while construing the provision in Expln. 2 to S. 2 (15) of the Estate Duty Act or S. 27. When the; supreme Court adopted the observations in Getti Chettiar's case (6), in construing the expression 'disposition in S. 24 of the Estate Duty Act, the distinction sought to be made in the decision of the High Court of madras does no,t appear to be justified. The High Court of Gujarat in the decision reported in the Taxation (8) above referred, after noticing the ruling of the Supreme Court in Getti Chettiar's case (6) adhered to its earlier enunciation in Kantilal's case (2) In the light of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the above said case, the contention for the department that in a partition there is a ' disposition' cannot be accepted. Unless the transaction amounts to a ' disposition', the fact that one member got property less than what he would have got if the partition was made equally will have no significance. ( 8 ) S. 2 (15) of the Estate Duty Act defines what is property and explanation 2 provides :" The extinguishment at the expense of the deceased of a debt or other right shall be deemed to have been a disposition made by the deceased in favour of the person for whose benefit the debt or right was extinguished, and in relation to such a disposition the expression 'property' shall include the benefit conferred by the extinguishment of the debt or right. There is no settlement of any debt involved in the process of partition and consequently no, question of extinguishment of any debt arises. There is also no extinguishment of any right possessed by a coparcener resulting in any benefit to another coparcener or extinquishment of any right at the expense of the deceased. In these circumstances, Expln. 2 to S. 2 (15) is not attracted. The decision of the Punjab High Court in Controller of estate Duty v. Jaigopal Mehra related to a case of a relinquishment of his interest by a coparcener and is clearly distinguishable as in such a case there is nq partition of a, Hindu undivided family and the, undivided family continues, only the member relinquishing his interest going out of the family and his interest would be extinquished and the; benefit would go to the other members of the continuing family. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we hold that the Tribunal rightly held that the sum of Rs. 49,545 was not includible as the value of any property passing on death and answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the Accountable person. The respondent shall be entitled to the costs of this reference. Advocate's fee Rs. 250. 00. --- *** --- .