SUPREME COURT OF INDIA GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. VERSUS CHAKIRI YANADI & ANR. Civil Appeal No.

8538 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2010)Decided on 12-10- 2011. JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J.Leave granted. 2. The question that arises in this appeal, by special leave, is: whether the benefits of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are available to the appellants. 3. The appellants and the respondents are siblings being daughters and sons of Chakiri Venkata Swamy. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole impleading his father Chakiri Venkata Swamy (1st defendant), his brother Chakiri Anji Babu (2nd defendant) and his two sisters the present appellants as 3rd and 4th defendant respectively. In respect of scheduleproperties `A, `C and `D coparcenary property the plaintiff claimed that he, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have 1/3rd share each. As regards schedule property `Bas the property belonged to his motherhe claimed that all the parties have 1/5th equal share. 4. The 1st defendant died in 1993 during the pendency of the suit. 5. The trial court vide its judgment and preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 declared that plaintiff was entitled to 1/3 rd share in the schedule `A, `C and `D properties and further entitled to 1/4th share in the 1/3rd share left by the 1st defendant. As regards schedule property `B the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to 1/5 th share. The controversy in the present appeal does not relate to schedule `B property and is confined to schedule `A, `C and `D properties. The trial court ordered for separate enquiry as regards mesne profits. 6. The above preliminary decree was amended on September 27, 2003 declaring that plaintiff was entitled to equal share along with 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendant in 1/5th share left by the 1st defendant in scheduleproperty `B. 7. In furtherance of the preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 and the amended preliminary decree dated September 27, 2003, the plaintiff made two applications before the trial court (i) for passing the final decree in terms thereof; and (ii) for determination of mesne profits. The trial court appointed the Commissioner for division of the schedule property and in that regard directed him to submit his report. The Commissioner submitted his report. 8. In the course of consideration of the report submitted by the Commissioner and before passing of the final decree, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short, `2005 Amendment Act) came into force on September 9, 2005. By 2005 Amendment Act, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short `1956 Act) was substituted. Having regard to 2005 Amendment Act which we shall refer to appropriately at a later stage, the present appellants (3rd and 4th defendant) made an application for passing the preliminary decree in their favour for partition of schedule properties `A, `C and `D into four equal shares; allot one share to each of them by metes and bounds and for delivery of possession. 9. The application made by 3rd and 4th defendant was contested by the plaintiff. Insofar as 2nd defendant is concerned he admitted that the 3rd and 4th defendant are entitled to share as claimed by them pursuant to 2005 Amendment Act but he also submitted that they were liable for the debts of the family. 10. The trial court, on hearing the parties, by its order dated June 15, 2009, allowed the application of the present appellants (3rd and 4th defendant) and held that they were entitled for re-allotment of shares in the preliminary decree, i.e., they are entitled to 1/4th share each and separate possession in scheduleproperties `A, `C and `D.

11. The plaintiff (present respondent no. 1) challenged the order of the trial court in appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Single Judge by his order dated August 26, 2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. 12. 1956 Act is an Act to codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. This Act has brought about important changes in the law of succession but without affecting the special rights of the members of a Mitakshara Coparcenary. The Parliament felt that non-inclusion of daughters in the Mitakshara Coparcenary property was causing discrimination to them and, accordingly, decided to bring in necessary changes in the law. The statement of objects and reasons of the 2005 Amendment Act, inter alia, reads as under : The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary property without including the females in it means that the females cannot inherit in ancestral property as their male counterparts do. The law by excluding the daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. Having regard to the need to render social justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property. 13. With the above object in mind, the Parliament substituted the existing Section 6 of the 1956 Act by a new provision vide 2005 Amendment Act. After substitution, the new Section 6 reads as follows :6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,- (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. (2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and, (a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;

(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre- deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and (c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre- deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre- deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. (4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or greatgrandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect (a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted. Explanation.For the purposes of clause (a), the expression son, grandson or great-grandson shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation. For the purposes of this section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court. 14. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The Legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a copercener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son. 15. The right accrued to a daughter in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, by virtue of the 2005 Amendment Act, is absolute, except in the circumstances provided in the proviso appended to subsection (1) of Section 6. The excepted categories to which new Section 6 of the 1956 Act is not applicable are two, namely, (i) where the disposition or alienation including any partition has taken place before December 20, 2004; and (ii) where testamentary disposition of property has been made before December 20, 2004. Sub- section (5) of Section 6 leaves no room for doubt as it provides that this Section shall not apply to the partition which has been effected before December 20, 2004. For the purposes of new Section 6 it is explained that `partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a court. In light of a clear provision contained in the Explanation appended to sub-section (5) of Section 6, for determining the non- applicability of the Section, what is relevant is to find out whether the partition has been effected before December 20, 2004 by deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or by a decree of a court. In the backdrop of the above legal position with reference to Section 6 brought in the 1956 Act by the 2005 Amendment Act, the question that we have to answer is as to whether the preliminary decree passed by the trial court on March 19, 1999 and amended on September 27, 2003 deprives the appellants of the benefits of 2005 Amendment Act although final decree for partition has not yet been passed. 16. The legal position is settled that partition of a Joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, inter-alia, two of these modes are (one) by a registered instrument of a partition and (two) by a decree of the court. In the present case, admittedly, the partition has not been effected before December 20, 2004 either by a registered instrument of

partition or by a decree of the court. The only stage that has reached in the suit for partition filed by the respondent no.1 is the determination of shares vide preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 which came to be amended on September 27, 2003 and the receipt of the report of the Commissioner. 17. A preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed, the events and supervening circumstances occur necessitating change in shares, there is no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation. We are fortified in our view by a 3- Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case ofPhoo!chand and Anr. Vs. Gopa! La! [AIR 1967 SC 1470] wherein this Court stated as follows: We are of opinion that there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits the passing of more than one preliminary decree if circumstances justify the same and that it may be necessary to do so particularly in partition suits when after the preliminary decree some parties die and shares of other parties are thereby augmented. . . . .. So far therefore as partition suits are concerned we have no doubt that if an event transpires after the preliminary decree which necessitates a change in shares, the court can and should do so; there is no prohibition in the Code of Civil Procedure against passing a second preliminary decree in such circumstances and we do not see why we should rule out a second preliminary decree in such circumstances only on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate such a possibility. . . for it must not be forgotten that the suit is not over till the final decree is passed and the court has jurisdiction to decide all disputes that may arise after the preliminary decree, particularly in a partition suit due to deaths of some of the parties. . . . .a second preliminary decree can be passed in partition suits by which the shares allotted in the preliminary decree already passed can be amended and if there is dispute between surviving parties in that behalf and that dispute is decided the decision amounts to a decree . 18. This Court in the case of S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy and Others [(1991) 3 SCC 647 11]had an occasion to consider the question identical to the question with which we are faced in the present appeal. That was a case where during the pendency of the proceedings in the suit for partition before the trial court and prior to the passing of final decree, the 1956 Act was amended by the State Legislature of Andhra Pradesh as a result of which unmarried daughters became entitled to a share in the joint family property. The unmarried daughters respondents 2 to 5 therein made application before the trial court claiming their share in the property after the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The trial court by its judgment and order dated August 24, 1989 rejected their application on the ground that the preliminary decree had already been passed and specific shares of the parties had been declared and, thus, it was not open to the unmarried daughters to claim share in the property by virtue of the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The unmarried daughters preferred revision against the order of the trial court before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the trial court and declared that in view of the newly added Section 29-A, the unmarried daughters were entitled to share in the joint family property. The High Court further directed the trial court to determine the shares of the unmarried daughters accordingly. The appellant therein challenged the order of the High Court before this Court. This Court considered the matter thus; A partition of the joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, viz., by a family settlement, by a registered instrument of partition, by oral arrangement by the parties, or by a decree of the court. When a suit for partition is filed in a 12 court, a preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the members of the family. The final decree follows, thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete. The preliminary decree which determines shares does not bring about the final partition. For, pending the final decree the shares themselves are liable to be varied on account of the intervening events. In the instant case, there is no dispute that only a preliminary decree had been passed and before the final decree could be passed the amending Act came into force as a result of which clause (ii) of Section 29-A of the Act became applicable. This intervening event which gave shares to respondents 2 to 5 had the effect of varying

shares of the parties like any supervening development. Since the legislation is beneficial and placed on the statute book with the avowed object of benefitting women which is a vulnerable section of the society in all its stratas, it is necessary to give a liberal effect to it. For this reason also, we cannot equate the concept of partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case with a mere severance of the status of the joint family which can be effected by an expression of a mere desire by a family member to do so. The partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case is undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and which has brought about an irreversible situation. A preliminary decree which merely declares shares which are themselves liable to change does not bring about any irreversible situation. Hence, we are of the view that unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. Any other view is likely to deprive a vast section of the fair sex of the benefits conferred by the amendment. Spurious family settlements, instruments of partitions not to speak of oral partitions will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of the legislation depriving a vast section of women of its benefits. 19. The above legal position is wholly and squarely applicable to the present case. It surprises us that the High Court was not apprised of the decisions of this Court in Phoolchand and S. Sai Reddy. High Court considered the matter as follows: In the recent past, the Parliament amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short `the Act), according status of coparceners to the female members of the family also. Basing their claim on amended Section 6 of the Act, the respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants 3 and 4 filed I.A. No. 564 of 2007 under Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C., a provision, which applies only to preparation of final decree. It hardly needs an emphasis that a final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree. If any party wants alteration or change of preliminary decree, the only course open to him or her is to file an appeal or to seek other remedies vis-` -vis the preliminary decree. As long as the preliminary decree stands, the allotment of shares cannot be in a manner different from what is ordained in it. 20. The High Court was clearly in error in not properly appreciating the scope of Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C. In a suit for partition of immovable property, if such property is not assessed to the payment of revenue to the government, ordinarily passing of a preliminary decree declaring the share of the parties may be required. The court would thereafter proceed for preparation of final decree. In Phoolchand1, this Court has stated the legal position that C.P.C. creates no impediment for even more than one preliminary decree if after passing of the preliminary decree events have taken place necessitating the readjustment of shares as declared in the preliminary decree. The court has always power to revise the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the situation in the changed circumstances so demand. A suit for partition continues after the passing of the preliminary decree and the proceedings in the suit get extinguished only on passing of the final decree. It is not correct statement of law that once a preliminary decree has been passed, it is not capable of modification. It needs no emphasis that the rights of the parties in a partition suit should be settled once for all in that suit alone and no other proceedings. 21. Section 97 of C. P.C. that provides that where any party aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after the commencement of the Code does not appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree does not create any hindrance or obstruction in the power of the court to modify, amend or alter the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the changed circumstances so require. 22. It is true that final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree but that does not mean that a preliminary decree, before the final decree is passed, cannot be altered or amended or modified by the trial court in the event of changed or supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree. 23. The view of the High Court is against law and the decisions of this Court in Phoolchand1 and S.Sai Reddy.

24. We accordingly allow this appeal; set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court dated June 15, 2009. The trial court shall now proceed for the preparation of the final decree in terms of its order dated June 15, 2009. No costs.

Q.1 How does Hindu Undivided Family come into existence under Hindu Law as well as under Income-tax Act, 1961? Ans. The concept of HUF under Hindu law as well as Income-tax Act, 1961 is the same. As stated earlier, HUF is purely a creature of law and cannot be created by an act of parties (except in case of adoption and reunion). A HUF is a fluctuating body, its size increases with birth of a male member in the family and decreases on death of a member of the family.Females go and come into HUF on marriage. In case of a sole male Hindu, strictly speaking, a HUF comes to existence automatically upon his marriage. It has been held [Refer : Gowli Buddanna v/s. CIT [(1966) 60 ITR 293 (SC)] that to constitute a joint Hindu family, it is not necessary that there has to be more than onecoparcener in the family; a husband and wife can validly constitute a HUF. Q.2 Whether a single person can constitute HUF? Ans. No. A single person cannot constitute HUF. There has to be minimum two members to constitute a HUF. [Refer : C. Krishna Prasad v/s. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 493 (SC)] Q.3 Can a son who is the sole surviving coparcener along with other females in the family after his fathers death constitute an HUF? Ans. Yes. As discussed in answer 10, to constitute a HUF, it is not necessary that there has to be minimum two coparceners or minimum two male members in the family. In the given case, the HUF of the father will continue even after death of the father, with the son as Karta and other family members ofthe family as its members. Q.4 What will be the position if the son is the sole male coparcener without any female members? Ans. In such a case, there will not be any HUF. However, upon marriage of such son, automatically, HUF will come into existence. Q.5 Can a son being a member of HUF consisting of his father, himself and his brothers, form an HUF consisting of himself, his wife and minor son? Ans. Under Hindu law, there can be a HUF within a HUF. Therefore, a son can have his own smaller HUF while he continues to be a member of his fathers HUF. In his fathers HUF, he is a mere member and in his own HUF, he is Karta. Q.6 Whether a Hindu marrying Christian, and bringing up his daughter as Christian, can claim HUF status? Ans. No. If the child is not brought up as a Hindu, confirming the habits and usages of Hinduism, such child will not be regarded as a Hindu. Consequently, there can not be a Hindu Undivided Family, as recognized by law. [Refer : Addl. CIT vs. G. Venkataraman [(1977) 109 ITR 247 (Mad)]. Q.7 Whether an assessee can claim a status of HUF on ground of legal obligation to maintain his wife after partition allotting shares to wife and children? Ans. There is a difference of opinion among various courts on this issue. One view is that the status of Joint Hindu Family does not come to an end even if the wife is given a share on partition, as the statusdepends upon the relationship of husband and wife, which does not get snapped in case of partition, and the wife continues to be a member of her husbands family. [Refer : Prem Chand vs. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 440 (AP)]. Another view is that in such a case, the HUF comes to an end, till a son is born to or adopted by such couple. This view is based on the logic that the wife will have no right of maintenance or right to get a share on partition she has already taken her share [Refer : CIT vs. Radheshyam Agarwal (1998) 230 ITR 21 (Pat)]. The second view appears to be a correct view.

Q.8 Where the coparcener is an individual at the time of partition, whether he can constitute a HUF on marriage? Ans. As discussed in answers 2 and 4, such coparcener along with his wife, can constitute HUF upon hismarriage. However, as to whether the share received on partition becomes HUF property on marriagethere is a difference of opinion among various Courts. The better view seems to be that it becomes HUF property. Q.9 What is HUF Property? Ans. A property owned by a HUF is HUF property. A HUF can acquire properties from various sources viz., on partition, by way of gift, through will, accretion to the existing properties, blending, by joint labour, etc. However, after the codification of major aspects of Hindu law in 1956, the concept of ancestral property is considerably diluted, as there is now a clear demarcation between individual property and HUF property of a Hindu male. Self acquired property of a Hindu male will pass on to his legal heirs as per the rules of succession and the legal heirs receive the property as individual property. So also the share of the deceased co-parcener in HUF, which otherwise devolves by survivorship to other co-parcener goes by succession to legal heirs, which they hold as separate property, if such coparcener has left certain class of female relatives or a male relative who claims through such female relative, specified in Class I of the first schedule to Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Q.10 Whether a family that does not own any property can have the character of Hindu joint family? Ans. Yes, the concept of HUF is not related to possession of any property by the family nor the existence of such joint property is an essential pre-condition for constituting a HUF. This is because Hindus get joint family status by birth and joint property is simply an adjunct to the joint family. Q.11 What is the nature of property received by a male member after his marriage but before a male child is born? Ans. There is considerable controversy on these aspects. There are divergent views expressed by different courts from time to time. One view is that since a HUF, as known under Hindu law, can consist of even husband and wife only, once such a HUF has come into existence upon marriage of a Hindu male, such family can receive property from any source and regard the same as HUF property. However, the other view is that in such a case, a distinction should be made between a property that already has characteristic of a joint property, (for example, property received on partition) and other than such properties. In case of receipt of properties of the former kind, such family (that is, consisting only ofhusband and wife) can receive and treat such property as joint Hindu family property. But in case of latter (that is, in the cases like gift or will), unless there are at least two coparceners in the family, such HUF cannot receive or treat such property as HUF property. In other words, since, in such family of husband and wife, there is only one coparcener i.e. husband (wife being a mere member and not coparcener), if such HUF wants to receive and regard any property from an outside source as HUF property, then it has to have another coparcener in the family; i.e., son. The latter view seems to be a safer one. Q.12 What is the nature of property received by a Hindu from his father and having only a wife and daughters in his family? Ans. This will depend upon whether the property received by such Hindu from his father is fathers individual property or property of fathers HUF. In case of the former, such Hindu will be receiving the property as a legal heir of the father and the rules of succession as prescribed under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, will prevail. If the property is received from fathers HUF, then it can form part of HUF of such Hindu. But the share of the father in the HUF, upon his death, can go to his legal heirs, which will be their individual property, if the father has left behind him any female relative or a male relative claiming through such female relative, as in Class I of the schedule to that Act. Q.13 Whether property acquired by gift by the assessee from his mother with an intention of his mother that the money should be used for the benefit of his family is HUF property or not? Ans. Subject to answer 20, HUF can receive gifts from anybody, including a stranger. In any case, as held by the Supreme Court, [Ref : CIT vs. K. Satyendra Kumar (1998) 232 ITR 360] (SC)] a gift by mother also can be a source of HUF property. Q.14 Can a coparcener blend his self-acquired property with that of HUF?

Ans. Yes, a co-parcener can blend his self-acquired property with that of HUF by throwing his individual or selfacquired property into family hotchpot or by impressing such property with the character of HUF property. Q.15 Whether such blending of individual property with that of HUF requires consent of other members of the family? Ans. No, the act of blending does not require consent of other members of the family. The act is an unilateral act and is a matter of individual volition. There is no question of family either accepting it or rejecting it. Such blending does not constitute a transfer. [Ref : CIT v/s. A. Krishna Murthy (1978) 113 ITR 133 (AP)] Q.16 Can the act of the coparcener blending individual property into HUF be considered as revocable transfer? Ans. No, once blending is done, it is not revocable. There is no provision for retransfer, directly or indirectly, of the whole or any part of the income or assets to the transferor. As such, there is no question of blending being regarded revocable transfer for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961. [Refer : Addl. CIT vs. A. R. Sahasranamam (1977) 109 ITR 493 (Mad)] Q.17 Can a coparcener blend his individual property into his smaller HUF wherein he is a Karta, while continuing to be a member of the bigger HUF consisting of his father, himself and his brothers? Ans. A co-parcener can be co-parcener of two joint Hindu families. The blending is at his option, he may blend his property with either of the HUFs. In that view of the matter, a co-parcener can blend his individual property with his smaller HUF, wherein he is Karta, while continuing to be a member of the bigger HUF consisting of his father, himself and his brother. [Refer : CIT vs. M. M. Khanna (1963) 49 ITR 232 (Bom)] Q.18 What will be the position where the smaller HUF consists of only his wife and minor daughter? Ans. As discussed in answer 20, there are divergent views on the aspect of the treatment of the property received by a HUF, consisting of only husband, wife and minor daughter. The Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda vs. CIT [(1975) 101 ITR 776)], on similar facts has held that in such a case, such husband cannot blend his individual property, which has no ancestral characteristic, with his HUF property. Q.19 Is it necessary for the HUF to have any ancestral property prior to receiving the property from one of the coparceners? Ans. No, it is not necessary for the HUF. Even an empty hotchpot can receive and hold any property that is thrown into it by the co-parcener [Refer : CIT vs. S. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar (1983) 144 ITR 285 (Mad)] Q.20 Can a female member of the family blend her individual property into the HUF? Ans. Blending is a power given only to co-parceners. Since females are not co-parceners, a female member of a joint family cannot blend her individual property with HUF property. [Refer : Mallesappa vs. Desai (AIR (1961) SC 1298) and Pushpa Devi v/s. CIT [(1977) 109 ITR 730 (SC)] Q.21 Will the clubbing provisions be applicable with respect to any income generated from such blended or converted property? Ans. Yes, the clubbing provisions u/s. 64(2) of the Income-tax Act as well as section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act are specifically introduced to tax income/wealth arising from such blending. Under the Income-tax Act, the income arising from such converted property will be deemed to be income of the transferor individual. Moreover, on partition of such property, in case such property is distributed to wife of such individual, the income arising therefrom shall be continued to be taxable in the hands of the transferor individual. Similarly under the Wealth-tax Act, the converted property is deemed to be the asset belonging to the individual and when such converted property has been the subject matter of partition, the converted property or any part thereof, which is received by wife of the individual on such partition, shall be deemed to be the property belonging to such individual and as such will be includible in the wealth of such individual.

A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is known as a Joint Hindu Family under the Hindu Law. It comprises all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and living under a common roof and joint in estate, food and worship. Yet, an HUF can exist without holding any property. There are two schools of law governing HUF in India: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. West Bengal is the only state in India which follows the Dayabhaga school of law. Hindu Coparcenary:- A coparcenary is purely a creature of law. It comprises only those persons who acquire an interest in the joint coparcenary property by birth, and generally includes sons, grandsons and great grandsons who areholders of the joint family property for the time being. In other words, the three generations who areholders of the joint family property in an unbroken male descent are members of an HUF. A coparceners interest can be enlarged by death in the family or diminish by birth. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, gave daughters the same rights and liabilities in the Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons. Consequently, a daughter is now recognised as a coparcener and get interests in the coparcenary property of the fathers family by birth. This change applies to all daughters, including those born/married prior to 9 September 2005. This amendmentsupersedes the one carried out earlier in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. HUFs partitioned before 20 December 2004 are not affected by this change, provided the partition was registered under the Registration Act. With this change in law, daughters and sons of the married daughter will enjoy all coparcenary rights by birth in their maternal grandfathers family and also in the family of their father. The eldest coparcener in the family is called karta, who manages the affairs of the family. The daughter, being a coparcener, can now become karta of her fathers family. But, the question of a married daughter becoming karta of the fathers family remains unanswered, since, on marriage, the daughter continues as the coparcener despite ceasing to be the member of the fathers family. Kinds Of Properties:- In a coparcenary property, every coparcener has a joint interest and joint possession. A joint family property cannot be disposed of, except out of legal necessity or for the benefit of the family. While selling an immovable property, care should be taken to obtain the high courts permission if there is a minor in the family. The high court, generally, gives the go-ahead only if the minors interest is safeguarded. Any coparcener may, voluntarily, blend his separate property with the HUFs property with the intention of abandoning a separate claim on it. But under tax laws, income arising from such transferred or gifted property to the HUF will continue to be included in the income of such a coparcener. Partition :- Every coparcener has a right to ask for partition, which may be total or partial. A partition is total when all properties of the family are divided among the members, and on such a partition, the HUF ceases to exist. Under Hindu Law, it is not necessary to divide all property by metes and bound, but without that the partition will not be recognised under tax laws. Partial partition is of two types: partial partition vis-a-vis property, which means distributing certain property to the members and retaining balance properties with the family; partial partition vis-a-vis person, which implies distributing certain properties to some members of the family, following which such member wont remain part of the family any longer. In partial partition, an HUF continues to be a separate entity. The only change is some of the property/ coparcener dont continue to be part of the family. All coparceners can, after effecting valid total partition, decide to reunite by bringing the entire property back into the HUF. Such an act is known as reunion. Female members, like the mother, who cannot ask for partition, are entitled to a share equal to that of a son in the event of partition. Coparcenary interest in HUF :- A coparceners interest devolves by survivorship to other coparceners and not by succession. But, if a deceased Hindu has left a surviving relative specified in Class I of theSchedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his/her interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property does not go by survivorship, but will devolve by testamentary or intestate succession to his/her legal heirs. If the share of the coparcener is devolved to the legal heir by succession, he acquires indefeasible interest in the HUF that will remain undiminished. His/her share will be determined as if the notional partition has taken place immediately prior to death of the coparcener. A coparcener is entitled to will away his coparcenary interest in the family.

Tax aspect:- HUF is a separate taxable entity. Its income is taxed independently of the members income. Income up to Rs 1.5 lakh earned during the assessment year 2009-10 is exempt from tax. It can also claim deductions under Chapter VI-A. Under Section 80C, up to Rs 1 lakh is available for investing in specified avenues. If other members of the family are in the highest tax bracket, its prudent to generate income of the HUF by investing its funds in income-earning avenues to take advantage of the lower tax base. Tax impact on partition of HUF :- If the capital or income base of the HUF is large, it may be more viable to make a total partition of the HUF property. On the partition of the larger HUF, each of the married sons will receive the property for and on the behalf of his own smaller HUF. If the smaller HUFs are in the lower tax bracket, it will help save tax in view of spreading income of the larger HUF. If a total partition takes place among members of the HUF, which were hitherto assessed to tax, an application for getting this fact recognised will have to be made to the assessing officer. Partial partition is not recognised for tax purposes. Income earned on the property received by a member on partial partition would be clubbed with the income of HUF as if theres no partition.

Meaning of Partition: - Partition is the severance of the status of Joint Hindu Family, known as Hindu Undivided Family under tax laws. Under Hindu Law once the status of Hindu Family is put to an end, there is notionaldivision of properties among the members and the joint ownership of property comes to an end. However, for an effective partition, it is not necessary to divide the properties in metes and bounds. But under tax laws for an effective partition division by metes and bounds is necessary. Partition under Hindu Law, can be total or partial. In total partition all the members cease to be members of the HUF and all the properties cease to be properties belonging to the said HUF. Partition could be partial also. It may be partial vis-a-vis members, where some of the members go out onpartition and other members continue to be the members of the family. It may be partial vis-a-vis properties where, some of the properties, are divided among the members other properties continue to be HUF properties. Partial partition may be partial vis-a-vis properties and members both. Difference between partition under the Hindu Law and that under the Income-tax Act: There is a difference between a partition under Hindu Law and a partition recognised under the Income-tax Act. Though the concept of partition is the same under Hindu and tax laws, in two respects, recognition ofpartition under tax laws differs from that under Hindu Law. For recognition of partition under Hindu Law division of properties by metes and bounds is not necessary. However, for recognition of partition under tax laws, division of properties by metes and bounds is necessary. Again under Hindu Law partial partition is recognised. However, in view of provisions of S.171(9) of Income-tax Act, 1961, partial partitions will not be recognised for tax purposes. Right to claim Partition: Under the Hindu law, any coparcener can make a claim for partition. Necessity of other coparceners to agree in order to entitle a coparcener to claim for a partition:-It is not necessary that other coparceners should agree to the partition sought by one of the coparceners. But merely because one member severs his relations with others there is no severance between others.{CIT vs. Govindlal Mathurbhai Oza [1982] 138 ITR 711 (Guj.)} The other members continue to remain joint. Partition on death of coparcener:- A partition is an act effected inter vivos between the parties agreeing to the partition. A death of partner cannot bring about an automatic partition and on such a death, the other surviving members continue to remain joint. However under the provisions of 56 of Hindu Succession Act, there is a

deemed partition for a limited purpose of determining the share of the deceased co-parcener for the purpose of succession under the Act. Right of minor to claim partition:- A minor can claim partition through his guardian. reported in [1983] 141 ITR 558 {SC}. Eight of wife of Karta to claim partition :- As per Hindu law, the ordinary rule is that a partition can be claimed only by a coparcener and wife not being a coparcener she cannot ask for partition. Certain States including Maharashtra have brought amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, conferring coparcenery rights to daughters and as such they can claim partition. Validity of partition between widow-mother and sole surviving coparcener-son: A wife or mother has no right to claim partition, but if a partition is effected a mother or the wife gets a share equal to that of the son. Equal distribution of Share among sons by Karta Father: - A father in his right as patria potetas or otherwise can effect a partition between himself and his son of the joint family property of HUF. However, he has to allot equal shares to the sons. The father is expected to act bona fide and only aggrieved party can seek relief by way of appropriate proceedings. However, till such a partition is held invalid by a competent court, it must be held as valid. Apporva Shantilal Shah vs. CIT [1983] 141 ITR 558 (S. C.) Ownership of Property received by a member on a total partition of HUF: The property received by male member on total partition will retain its character as a joint family property. If he is single, it will be HUF property on the marriage. The authorities in this regard are : [a] CIT vs. Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwala and Sons [1997] 223 ITR 45. A sole member can constitute a HUF on marriage. [b] CIT vs. Radhe Shyam Agarwal [1998] 230 ITR 21 (Pat). Position when the wife of the karta also been allotted a separate share of property:- The property of the wife of the Karta will be her individual property. There is a difference of opinion among the Courts as to whether she continues to be a member of her husbands HUF after allotment of a share to her onpartition. Partition is not transfer:- The Supreme Court in the case of CED vs. Kanhlal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92, 101 (S. C.) observed that partition is really a process in which and by which a joint enjoyment of the property is transformed into enjoyment in severalty. Each one of the sharers has an antecedent title and therefore, no conveyance is involved in the process, as confirmed of new title is not necessary. This decision is an authority for the proposition that no conveyance is required for a partition, but not for whether there is a transfer involved in a partition. In the case of Kalooram Govindram vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 335 {S.C.), the Supreme Court did not give any opinion as to whether a partition constitutes a transfer within the meaning of Transfer of Property Act. But according to Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad vs. CED [1968] 67 ITR 281 (AP)the Supreme Court in 57 ITR 335 has given final authority that in partition there is no transfer. Question:- If a house-property belonging to an HUF is divided (in 4 portion) and then transferred to Karta and his 3 sons, what will be the tax impact of this transaction in the hands of HUF and each of the co-parcener? Answer:- The house property is a capital asset. Its transfer result in capital gains which is chargeable to tax under the I T Act. However, transfer of assets from HUF to its members is special case. There is express provision under the I T Act which says that the distribution of capital asset on total or partialpartition of HUF is not regarded as transfer for the purpose of I T Act. The said provision contained in section 47(i) of the I T Act is as under: 47. Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers :(i) any distribution of capital assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family; A reference in the

above regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apoorva Shantilal Shah vs. CIT as

The partition in Hindu law is effected by a definite and unequivocal indication of a coparceners intention to separate. Similarly, a partial partition is effected by a definite and unequivocal indication of the coparcener to partition a particular business or property of the joint family leaving the other assets as joint family property. Therefore ,it is very important to understand word total or partial partition. In that case only, distribution of assets is not regarded as transfer and no capital gains occur in hand of HUF. However, in individuals hand there is no taxable income in any case on transfer of house property from HUF. Physical division of property by way of book entries not permissible :-Where a property is capable of physical division, the partition must be made by physical division only. If the property of the HUF does not admit of physical division, the property must be so physically divided as much permits. For example, it is not expected that the utility of the property is lost by compelling a physical partition and in such a case, the property may be divided physically to the extent possible. This is rule in section 179 to make a valid claim for recognising the partition for Income-tax purposes. Basically, a partition can be made orally and there is no requirement in law that the partition must be evidenced by a written agreement. Even a partition of immovable property of HUF can be through an oral agreement [Popatlal Devram vs. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 1073 (Orissa).] Entries showing division of the property in books of account may be good evidence of a partition more particularly in cases where the property may not be capable of physical division. For example, it has been held that a business cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. [R.B. Bansidhar Dhandhania vs. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 126 (Patna)] Therefore, where a business of HUF was partitioned by well defined shares and partnership formed was held valid. Therefore, where credit balances in capital account in books of firm in which assessee HUF was a partner is partitioned, it was held that there was a valid partition. [Motilal Shyam Sunder vs. CIT [1972] 849 ITR 186(All).] In the case of CIT vs. K. G. Ramakrishnier [1963] 49 ITR 608 (Mad.), the Madras High Court held that an asset which is not capable of physical division can be partitioned by making entries in books. Here, entries relating partition were passed in books of HUF and not the partnership firm where HUF was a partner. The partition was held valid. Procedures for recognition of partition:- The HUF, which has been hitherto assessed, must make a claim to the assessing officer that the HUF properties have been subjected to total partition. The Assessing Officer will make an inquiry in to the claim after giving notice to all members of the HUF and if he is satisfied that the claim is correct, he will record a finding that there was a total partition of the HUF and the date on which it has taken place. Partition for conversion of family business into partnership:- A business cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. This is the observation of the Patna High Court in the case of R.B. Bansidhar Dhandhania vs. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 126 (Patna). Here, the business of HUF was partitioned by well defined shares and partnership formed was held valid. It may however be noted that a partition can be effected orally. Subsequent entries in the books of account are good evidence of partition. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shiolingappa Shankarappa Mendse and Bros. [1982] 135 ITR 375 (Bom.) had occasion to deal with a case where there was a partition of HUF and subsequent formation of a partnership firm by the erstwhile members of the HUF. Transaction of partition was evidenced by book entries. Partnership was held valid. Where, however division of property (business) of HUF was not effected properly, the claim that business of HUF was converted into that of partnership firm was not upheld and the income from the business was held assessable in hands of the HUF itself. {Kaluram & Co. (HUF) vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 307 (Del.)] Order u/s 171 not required where a HUF has not been assessed to tax:- The wordings of section 171 show that the section has no application to a HUF, which has not been hitherto assessed. The authorities in support of this proposition are : CIT vs. Kantilal Ambalal (HUF) [1991] 192 ITR 376 (Guj.)

Addl. CIT vs. Durgamma (P) [1987] 166 ITR 776 (A.P.) CIT vs. Hari Krishnan Gupta [2001] 117 Taxman 214 (Del.) Reference may also be made in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. ITO [1968] 68 ITR (SC)/Sir Sunder Singh Majithia vs. CIT [1942] 10 ITR 457 (PC). Validity of Penalty on HUF after a total partition: The provisions of section 171[8] gives the mandate to an assessing officer to levy penalty on a HUF disrupted after partition. The levy of such penalty has also been upheld by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raghuram Prasad [1983] 143 ITR 212 {All}. Where a coparcener with only his widow as legal heir dies, could a partition be deemed as between the surviving coparcener and the widow on his death? : . Where a deceased dies issueless leaving a widow there is no question of a deemed partition u/s. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. This is the finding of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhartiben S. Jhaveri vs. CED [1999] 238 ITR 995 (Guj). The reason being there is no coparcenery with only one male. A similar ratio was held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CED vs. Smt. S. Harish Chandra [1987] 167 ITR 230 {All} that proviso to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not come into operation where there is no coparcenary in existence at the time of the death of the male member. Responsibility to pay Tax After partition of an HUF up to the date of partition:- As per section 171 [6], every member of the HUF before partition shall be jointly and severally liable for the tax on the income assessed of the HUF. The same section empowers the assessing officer to recover the tax due on completion of the assessment on the disrupted HUF from every person who was member of the HUF before partition. Further, as per section 171[7], the several liability of the member shall be computed according to the portion of the joint family allotted to him at the time of the partition. It may however be noted that joint liability of the member is personal and distinct from the personal and several liability as found by the Supreme Court in the case of Govindas vs. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123, 132 {SC}. As such a member of a HUF before partition is not personally liable, after partition in respect the liability of HUF, ex-members liability is personal. Also, unlike the several liability, the joint liability is not limited to the asset received by the member on partition as noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. ITO vs. A.S. Thinmaya [1965] 55 ITR 666, 671 {SC}. Notional partition: Under the provisions of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, where a Hindu male dies intestate on or after 17th June 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property leaving behind a female heir of the class I category, then his interest in the coparcenary property shall devolve by succession under that Act and not by survivorship. The interest of the deceased will be carved out for devolution as if a notional partition had taken place before the death of the deceased. This is the concept of notional partition. Notional partition and destruction of the family:-The notional partition only crystallises the share due to the female heir and does not disrupt the joint family. A direct authority can be found in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh, which is reported in [1987] 163 ITR 31 {SC}, wherein it was held that the purpose of section 6 is only for ascertainment of the share of the female heir and unless the share is given away, the same cannot be excluded from the assets of the HUF. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT vs. Chandrasinhrao D. Gaikwad [1999] 237 ITR 875 came to the same conclusion without referring to the above decision of the Supreme Court. In fact, the widow of a deceased coparcener is entitled to the share of the deceased in a Hindu individual family governed by Mitakshara Law according to section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 continues to be member of HUF until she files suit for partition. [Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabhai Khandappa Magdum [1981] 129 ITR 440 (S.C.) followed inKishandas vs. CWT [2000] 243 ITR 307 (A. P.)]

Notional partition exist under the Income-tax Act:- In order that a claim for partition has to be recognised under the Income-tax Act, the claim for partition must fulfil the condition laid down in section 171. A mere notional partition by operation of a statute like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not sufficient for recognising a partition under the Income-tax Act. This is the dictum of the Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.B. Tunki Sah Baidyanath Prasad [1991] 189 ITR 351 {Patna] approved on facts by the Supreme Court in 212 ITR 632 {SC}. Related posts:

There is an impression that the more complex a document , the greater its value. This is not correct. Certain documents reducing an oral family arrangement to record are those which cover large-value properties. The documents may be so simple that the simplicity itself may throw doubt on the documentation. Further, this is a matter which frequently comes up for discussions. The relevant queries are collated in question-answer format to enable an easy understanding. 1. What is a family arrangement? Broadly speaking, it is an arrangement or an agreement between members of one family. It is usually in the nature of settling a dispute. The object is to preserve the property and the good name of the family by recognising that it is not in the good interest of the family for the members to engage in fights or disputes. It is essentially in the nature of acompromise. The idea is to preserve and protect the peace, security and the interest of the family and its members as a whole. 2. What are the critical aspects of a family arrangement? The arrangement should be made in good faith. Good faith can be stated to be the essence of the familyarrangement. It should not be made with a view to circumvent provisions of law relating to stamp duty or provide an advantageous position with regard to stamp duty and registration costs. It must not be in the nature of extinguishing or limiting the rights of a family member who is not a consenting party to the arrangement. It should be in the nature of settling disputes, promoting harmony and not in the nature of inciting disputes or disrupting the harmony. There should not be any fraud or undue influence played in any member or members of the family. It must be a voluntary arrangement. 3. What is the consideration involved in a family arrangement? If you take the case of sale, the sale price is usually the consideration for conveyance of the property. However, in a family arrangement, the settlement of disputes, harmony within the family, honour of the family, prevention of disputes, compromise of disputes, preservation of property and, in general, matters in the nature of protecting the interest of all concerned will be treated as sufficient consideration, so long as the arrangement is made in good faith. 4. Can a family arrangement be made orally? A family arrangement can be made orally. It is legally valid and recognised. However, all the criticalfactors of a valid family arrangement would be applied to find out whether such arrangement would be valid and fair. The circumstances have to be looked into. 5. What is the basis on which the rights of the members to a family arrangement is recognised? A family arrangement is not treated as a conveyance. It is only in the nature of allocation, distribution, re-distribution or recognition of pre-existing rights. This is like re-alignment of rights. In the process, some of the pre-existing rights of one of more members may even be extinguished by their consent. So long as it meets the other requirements of a valid family arrangement, this is also recognised. The matter to be considered is the recognition of a claim or a right and not the transfer of the same even though there could be relinquishment by one or more members or acknowledgement of rights of others by one or more members.

6. What can be termed as a Family Dispute? The dispute could relate to any aspect, but is usually relates to the rights or claims in respect of property, assets, enjoyment of rights in respect of properties, claims, shares, possible claims, family feuds, refusal to recognise rights of family members, etc.

It could relate to any aspect which may threaten the rights of any member or the family as a whole, if thedisputes are prolonged or escalated or in the nature of creating situations or circumstances that the members are not able to meet eye to eye. It could be a genuine dispute or a controversy, rival claims, assertions and denials. It is unfortunate that many disputes revolve around the sheer ego of the persons involved. The law takes it that these disputes are not in the best interest of the members of the family. 7. Does a family arrangement require to be duly stamped and registered? This depends on the manner in which the document is made. Generally, if it is a memorandum recording a past transaction or is a record or a chit or a list merely reducing the earlier oral family arrangement, then there may not be any necessity for payment of stamp duty and registration charges as this is not a document of title. Otherwise, if it is intended to be a document of title containing declarations of rights of parties, then it has to be properly stamped and registered. This is the most difficult and controversial part of family arrangements. It is advisable to obtain proper advice from a lawyer in this regard. 8. How to determine whether a particular document relating to a family arrangement requires to be stamped and registered? This depends on various facts and circumstances and the document itself. One has to look into the manner in which it is made; the phraseology and wordings employed; the setting out of rights and terms and conditions; reference to pre-existing rights of the members; reference to the parties being members of Joint Hindu Family; timing of the document, besides other matters which may be relevant on a case to case basis. 9. What is the difference between a family arrangement and partition? A family arrangement may be based on disputed or potential or possible or even notional claims. In a partition, there should be very clear pre-existing rights. In a family arrangement, as is obvious, some degree of relationship is involved. A partition can be entered into between persons who have no family relationship, but are co-owners of property. A family arrangement can be in the nature of re-aligning, re-distributing or even consolidating certain claims and rights. A partition is always in the natureof division of property. There could be other differences on a case-tocase basis. 10. Is it possible to have a summary of matters relating to family arrangement? A family arrangement can be made orally. It need not be necessarily reduced to writing. If it is implemented in oral form, the question of stamping or registration does not arise.

Depending on the wordings employed, facts and circumstances and other factors, it may or may not required to be stamped and registered. Each document has to be scrutinised on the basis of the wordings contained in the document to arrive at a conclusion whether the same requires to be stamped and registered or otherwise.

At times, it may only be stamped, but not registered in which case it can be looked into for collateral purposes. If it is required to be stamped and registered, but is not properly stamped and registered, it cannot be looked into for any purpose. Whether a purpose is collateral or not, is a matter which has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances concerned.