Judgment :- GULAB C. GUPTA J. - This is a reference under section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Department referring the following question of law for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no element of gift involved in the settlement deeds executed by the assessee on May 2, 1970, and May 4, 1970, liable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?" The facts necessary for the decision of the aforesaid question are that the assessee was the karta of a family which consisted of his two sons and two unmarried daughters. In a partition between the father and sons, the father was given a larger share, i.e., 18.47 acres of land and a house as against 9.82 acres of land only to each of the two sons. It is stated that the larger share to the father was because of the obligation of the family to maintain and marry off unmarried daughters. Later on, the father settled on his two unmarried daughters a part of the land held by him by settlement deeds dated May 2, 1970, and May 4, 1970. The value of this land was subjected to gift-tax treating the same as transferred without consideration. The order of the assessing authority was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The matter was, therefore, taken by the assessee to the Appellate Tribunal which held that the transfer was for adequate consideration, the consideration being the discharge of obligation to maintain and marry off the unmarried daughters. The learned Tribunal further found that the consideration was adequate and, hence, held that there was no gift as defined under section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. On this finding, the assessment was set aside. Thereafter, the Department made a request for reference which, having been granted, the matter is before this court for consideration.It cannot be doubted even for a moment at this stage that the assessee transferred a part of the property obtained by him in family partition for discharging his obligation of maintaining and marrying off the two unmarried daughters. There is also no dispute at this stage that the consideration, if at all it could be so termed, was adequate. There is also no dispute at this stage that the consideration, if at all it could be so termed, was adequate. The question, therefore, requiring consideration is whether the transfer for discharging the liability as aforesaid is a transfer for consideration. The matter has received the consideration of a Division Bench of this court in CGT v. M. Radhakrishna Gade Rao. That was also a case where the father had transferred a part of joint family property in favour of his unmarried daughter to discharge the liability of the family for her maintenance and marriage. The court, on a detailed consideration, was of the opinion that the discharge of liability for maintenance and marriage was a valid consideration and, therefore, the matter is well within section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. The submission of learned counsel for the Department, however, is that this was a case of transfer of joint family property where the father had admittedly an obligation to maintain the unmarried daughter. The position, according to learned counsel, in the instant case, is different. The assessee as father has in the instant case discharged his obligation under section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and submitted that the discharge of liability of maintenance and marriage would not be a valid consideration and, therefore, the instant transaction will be covered by the first part of the definition of gift under section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. This was a case under section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the point for consideration was whether the consideration was adequate. The opinion of this court was that the consideration was a good consideration, but not adequate consideration. We are not concerned with the adequacy or otherwise of the consideration. Indeed, the finding that the consideration was adequate has become final and has got to be accepted as such. This decision would, therefore, indicate that the discharge of liability for maintenance and marriage of unmarried daughters would be a consideration. Whether that consideration would be adequate or not, will depend upon the facts of each case. This case would, therefore, not support the submission of learned standing counsel for the Department that the consideration in the instant case was not a consideration at all. Indeed, this would support the contrary proposition and justify the view taken by us earlier. Whether that consideration would be adequate or not, will depend upon the facts of each case. This case would, therefore, not support the submission of learned standing counsel for the Department that the consideration in the instant case was not a consideration at all. Indeed, this would support the contrary proposition and justify the view taken by us earlier. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the answer to the question must be in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000.