JUDGEMENT 1. The rental income of a large building "Sumitra Sadan" was being shared by eight persons and each of them used to file separate Income Tax Returns showing himself as part owner of the building in relation to his share in such rental income. One of such eight owners, Sumitra Devi filed such returns for the Assessment Year 1991-92 to 1997-98 which were accepted. Subsequent thereto for the Assessment Year 1998-99, on scrutiny of return of Sumitra Devi, it was found that she was not the part owner of the building but the real owner of the building was the review-petitioner/appellant, Hindu Undivided Family. On such finding notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and thereupon under Section 143 of the Act, the assessment of the income of such building for the relevant years was assessed in the hands of the appellant/review-petitioner citing him as the owner" of the building. 2. The appellant had contended disruption of Hindu United Family on the basis of the family arrangement recorded on 21st April 1989. Subsequent to the family arrangement, the appellant/review-petitioner Bengali Singh, his wife and sons granted on lease a part of the building to Tata Iron & Steel Company under lease dated 28thDecember 1989. In the lease, Sri Singh described himself as Karta of the joint Hindu Family comprising of himself, his wife and major sons. In the deed, his minor sons had also been represented by Sri Singh. 3. Those sons, who according to the family arrangement, had not obtained any share in the building or the land upon which the building stood had also joined the lease deed. 4. On those grounds, the findings which was ultimately upheld by this Court vide order dated 16th April 2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 497 of 2008 and M.A. No. 76 of 2008 was that any partition pursuant to family arrangement of April 1989 did not take effect and that, therefore, the income was rightly assessed in the hands of the Hindu Undivided Family, the appellant/review-petitioner. 5. The appellant/review-petitioner filed S.L.A. (Civil) No. CC 13226 - 13227 of 2008. 6. 5. The appellant/review-petitioner filed S.L.A. (Civil) No. CC 13226 - 13227 of 2008. 6. In course of hearing of S.L.A. the appellant/review-petitioner filed some extracts from Assessment Register i.e. Patna Municipal Corporations annual municipal tax receipt in the name of Smt. Sumitra Devi and others and on the basis of the same, it was argued that family arrangement was acted upon. The Apex Court found that none of those documents were produced before this Court. Therefore, vide order dated 17th January 2008, the appellant/review-petitioner was permitted to move this Court by way of review/clarification and the hearing of the S.L.A. was kept to stand over for eight weeks. 7. Thus the hearing of the S.L.A. remained pending for decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the mean time, the appellant/review-petitioner was permitted to produce those documents i.e. the Municipal Tax Receipts before this Court by way of review/clarification. It is in view of that order that the appellant/review-petitioner has filed the receipts before this Court along with a review petition and seeks the finding of this Court over the matter. 8. Since the hearing of the S.L.A. on merit is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the appellant/review-petitioner has approached this Court under its review jurisdiction, this Court has a limited jurisdiction to be exercised for the purpose of giving a finding over the municipal receipts and its effect and bearing upon the main issue of the case. 9. The appellant has filed Patna Municipal Corporation Tax Receipts separately in the name of (1) Sumitra Devi (for holding Nos. 280H/10, 280H/2 & 280H/3), (2) Shiv Shankar Kumar Singh (for holding No. 280H/8), (3) Sanjay Kumar Singh (for holding No. 280H/9), (4) Raj Kumar Singh @ Shiailesh Kumar (for holding No. 280H/6), (5) Dilip Kumar Singh (for holding No. 280H/7), (6) Rajesh Kumar (for holding No. 280H/8) and (7) Mukesh Kumar (for holding No. 280H/4), each for the year 1991-92. 10. This has to be noted here that the Holding Numbers in the receipts in the name of Shiv Shankar Kumar Singh and Rajesh Kumar are common i.e. 280H/8. 11. 10. This has to be noted here that the Holding Numbers in the receipts in the name of Shiv Shankar Kumar Singh and Rajesh Kumar are common i.e. 280H/8. 11. The review petitioner has also filed extracts of Municipal Tax Assessment Register separately in the names of (1) Smt. Sunita Devi, (2) Raj Kumar Singh @ Shailesh Kumar, (3) Dilip Kumar Singh @ Manish Kumar, (4) Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh, (5) Sanjay Kumar Singh and (6) Rajesh Kumar, as maintained under Section 137 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act and it has been pointed out with reference to the entries of the column 22 of each of the extracts that a subsequent change in regard to the ownership of the Holding in favour of these six persons was made with effect from 30th March 1990. On the basis of the subsequent change in favour of the aforesaid six persons with effect from 30th March 1990, as pointed out from Column 22 of the extract, it was argued that since that date, the aforesaid six persons were recorded in the Municipal Tax Assessment Record as owner of the holding and they have been paying municipal taxes separately as separate and individual owner of the holding. In view of such separate assessment and payment of municipal taxes separately by the above six persons, it was sought to be impressed on behalf of review petitioner that those six persons were separate owner of the holding and they were not constituents of any Hindu Undivided family. 12. Such claim of the review-petitioner was opposed by the opposite party who stated that, no doubt, the entries in Col. 22 indicate subsequent change with effect from 30th March 1990 indicating separate municipal tax assessment in the names of aforesaid six persons, but there is nothing to show as to who was the previous owner of the holdings and in what capacity nor there is anything to indicate as to in what mode or manner i.e. gift, sale or partition the subsequent change of assessment separately in the name of above six persons were made for individual holdings in their favour. In course of hearing, learned Counsel for the review-petitioner submitted that this Court may call for the municipal records for verifying the mode or manner in which separate assessment of tax was made in the name of aforesaid six persons, but due to there being no material to show that the subsequent change had taken place, as a result of partition, there was no scope for exercise of such jurisdiction and it was also felt that under this limited review jurisdiction, as has been entrusted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this Court has to give its finding only on the basis of the materials i.e. Municipal Tax Receipts which the review-petitioner produced before the Hon ble Supreme Court and which has been directed to be considered by this Court. 13. Thus prima facie, the extracts from Municipal Register and the receipts show that due to subsequent change with effect from 30th March 1990 the aforesaid six persons, namely, (1) Smt. Sunita Devi, (2) Raj Kumar Singh @ Shailesh Kumar, (3) Dilip Kumar Singh @ Manish Kumar, (4) Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh, (5) Sanjay Kumar Singh and (6) Rajesh Kumar have been assessed separately as owner for the purpose of realization of municipal taxes, but there is nothing to show as to in whose name or in what capacity the holdings stood prior to subsequent change taking effect from 30th March 1990 and as to what was the mode or manner of change i.e. sale, gift or partition. 14. A very striking feature of the case is that the income of the building has been assessed in the hands of the appellant/review-petitioner Bengali Singh as HUF, but any receipt in the name of Bengali Singh as individual owner of any part of the building has not been produced in order to show that in subsequent change effected from 30th March 1990 he got his separate share in the building as has been claimed by the aforesaid six persons. 15. 15. While arguing, the learned Counsel for the review-petitioner cited the case of Digambar Adhar Patil V/s. Dev am Girdhar Patil and Anr., AIR 1995 SC 1728 , wherein it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the entries in the record of rights regarding the factum of partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence, given by the respondents to prove the factum of partition. On the basis of this finding of the Hon ble Apex Court it was argued by the learned Counsel that the separate assessment of municipal tax in the name of aforesaid six persons indicate factum of their partition from the Joint Hindu Family. But this argument does not hold good in the facts of the case that, no doubt, the aforesaid six persons stand separately assessed as owners for payment of Municipal tax, but there is no mention of any factum of partition in order to show that the separate tax assessment was made as a result of partition in the family. This is also to be noted here that there is no separate tax assessment in the name of Bengali Singh who had also received his share in the building under the said family arrangement dated 21st April 1989. 16. During argument, the review-petitioner cited the case of Bal Kishen Das and Ors. V/s. Ram Narain Sahu and Ors., 30 IA(PC) 139 wherein it was held that where Ikrarnama entered into between four members of a Hindu Joint Family stated in unambiguous term with definite share in the whole estate had been allotted to several co-parceners, that effected a separation in estate and its legal construction and effect could not be controlled or altered by the subsequent conduct of the parties. 17. The case of Girija Nandini Devi and Ors. V/s. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 , was also cited wherein it was held by the Apex Court that once the shares are defined whether by agreement between the parties or otherwise, partition is complete. The parties may thereafter choose to divide the property by metes and bounds or may continue to live together and enjoy the property in common as before. If they live together the mode of enjoyment alone remains joint but not the tenure of the property. 18. Further the case of Puttrangamma and Ors. The parties may thereafter choose to divide the property by metes and bounds or may continue to live together and enjoy the property in common as before. If they live together the mode of enjoyment alone remains joint but not the tenure of the property. 18. Further the case of Puttrangamma and Ors. V/s. M.S. Ranganna and Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1018 , was also cited wherein the Apex Court held that a member of a Joint Hindu Family subject to Mitakshara Law can bring about his separation in status by a definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty and that it is not necessary that there should be an agreement between all the co-parceners for the disruption of the joint status and that it is immaterial in such a case whether the other co-parceners give their assent to the separation or not. 19. Lastly, the review/petitioner cited the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur, 1982 1 SCC 447 , wherein the Apex Court held that under the Hindu Law, partition may be either total or partial and that partial partition may be as regards persons who are members of the family or as regards property which belonged to it and where there has been a partition, it is presumed that it was a total one both as to parties and property, but when there is a partition between brothers, there is no presumption that there has been partition between one of them and his descendents. 20. On the basis of as held in the above cited decisions, learned Counsel for the appellant/review-petitioner sought to impress upon this Court that there was a complete partition in the Hindu Undivided Family in view of the family arrangement dated 21st April 1989 and that any subsequent conduct of the parties as recorded in the lease dated 28th December 1989 contrary to the factum of partition does not make the family joint. Thus in this effort the review-petitioner tried to challenge the findings of this Court that there was no partition in the family inasmuch as the family arrangement as recorded on 21st April 1989 did not ever take effect. Thus in this effort the review-petitioner tried to challenge the findings of this Court that there was no partition in the family inasmuch as the family arrangement as recorded on 21st April 1989 did not ever take effect. It has to be mentioned here that the finding of this Court on the point as raised by the petitioner is already subjudice before the Hon ble Supreme Court and in this review petition we are called simply to record our findings on the extract from the Municipal Right and receipts as filed by the review-petitioner, we find no scope to entertain any challenge to the merits of our findings which is subjudice before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we refrain from giving any hearing on this aspect of the matter and give our findings in this regard. So far our findings with regard to the receipts are concerned, we have already expressed our opinion in the forgoing paragraphs and in light of these findings the review application is disposed of.