JUDGMENT JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by BHACHAWAT J.-This is reference under s. 26(1) of G.T. Act, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as " Act "), at instance of Department by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, referring following question for our answer: " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that sum of Rs. 80,000 received by wife of Shri Anand Kumar and their minor children did not amount to gift by assessee-HUF liable to gift-tax and consequently in uphold- ing AAC's order cancelling gift-tax assessment made on assessee-HUF? " material facts, as obtainable from statement of case, giving rise to this reference are these: assessee, Gopiji Laxmichand, is HUF of which Laxmichand is " karta joint family consists of Laxmichand; his son, Anand Kumar; Laxmichand's wife, Smt. Rajibai; Anandkumar's wife, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, and sons of Anandkumar. On October 25, 1973, by virtue of partition deed, partial partition of immovable properties of said HUF was effected. total value of immovable properties of Rs. 1,35,000 was divided amongst following members as detailed hereinbelow: Municipal Value Address Allotted on partition tohouse No. Rs. 6/41 8,000 Porwalon-kabas Smt. Rajibai, Laxmichand, Ratlam. 6/44 7,000 -do- Laxmichand Gopiji, Ratlam. 6/48 14,000 -do- Rajkumar Anandkumar, Ratlam. 6/49 22,000 -do- Sushilkumar Garg, Ratlam; Anandkumar, Ratlam. 6/38 30,000 Rammohalla, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Ratlam. Ratlam. 27/148 14,000 Chandnichowk, Mahendrakumar, Garg, Ratlam. Anandkumar, Ratlam. 10/58 40,000 Freeganj, Anandkumar Laxmichand, Ratlam. Ratlam. As result of above partial partition, Smt. Rajibai, (wife of karta Laxmichand), Laxmichand, karta of HUF, and Anandkumar, son of karta, were allotted immovable assets of value of Rs. 8,000, Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 40,000, respectively. This partial partition was accepted under s.. 171 of I.T. Act, l961, by ITO, vide his order March 7, 1975, with effect from October 25, 1970. Later on, GTO found that only three persons, viz., Laxmichand, Smt. Rajibai and Anandkumar, were entitled to share in immovable properties on partition and each one of them should have received properties to extent of Rs. 45,000, and as against this, total value of properties received by these three persons was only Rs. 55,000. GTO, therefore, held that rest of properties to extent of Rs. 80,000 received by Anandkumar's wife and their children amounted to gift by HUF in their favour. Holding thus, GTO initiated gift-tax proceedings and subjected amount of Rs. 80,000 to gift-tax. assessee preferred appeal before AAC. AAC allowed appeal and held that receipt of share by wife of Anandkumar and his children of property valued at Rs. 80,000 was not gift within meaning of s. 2(xii) read with s. 2(xxiv) of Act. Department went in second appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal confirmed order of AAC and dismissed appeal of Department. Thereupon, at instance of Department, present reference, as already stated hereinabove in para. 1 of this order, has been made to this court. It may be stated here that apart from other decisions, Tribunal has rested its conclusion, concurring with AAC's order, on decision of Supreme Court in CGT v. Getti Chettiar [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC). Learned counsel for Department has, while assailing decision of Tribunal, in elaboration of his argument, contended that since wife of Anandkumar and his minor children were not entitled to share, allotment of immovable property to tune of Rs. 80,000 to them is gift. He, in support of his argument, relied on decision of Supreme Court in CED v. Kantilal Trikamlal [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC). In our opinion, present case is completely covered by decision of Supreme Court in Getti Chettiar's case [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC), which has been referred to in Kantilal Trikamlal's case and in Kantilal Trikamlal's case [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC), it has been made very clear that view taken therein is with reference to definition of " property " contained in s. 2(15) of E.D. Act (34 of 1953), whereas decision in Getti Chettiar's case [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC), relates to definition of gift contained in. s. 2 of Act, as we shall presently indicate. facts and principle laid down by Supreme Court in Getti Chettiar's case [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC), as capsulised in headnote, are set out hereinbelow, which are self-explanatory of fact that that decision completely covers question at hand: " assessee was the' karta' of Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his son and his six grandsons. There was partition of immovable properties of family through registered deed executed on January 17, 1958, and movable properties were divided on April 13, 1958, on which date necessary entries in account books were made. total value of properties as divided was Rs. 8,51,440 but under that partition, assessee took properties worth only Rs. 1,78,343, remaining properties being allotted to son and grandsons. question was whether by allotting greater share to other members of coparcenary than that to which they were entitled, assessee could be held to have made "gift" of portion of his share of property to others and was liable to be taxed under Gift-tax Act, 1958. There was no finding that there was any division of status among members of family before they divided properties: Held, (i) that partition did not effect any transfer as generally understood in law and did not, therefore, fall within definition of 'gift' in section 2(xii) of Act; (ii) that partition in family could not be considered to be disposition, conveyance, assignment, settlement, delivery, payment or other alienation of property within meaning of those words in section 2(xxiv) of Act. (iii) that partition was not a' transaction' entered into by assessee with intent thereby to diminish directly or indirectly value of his own property and to increase value of property of any other person and, therefore, section 2(xxiv)(d) did not apply; (iv) that, therefore, there was no gift by assessee on which he was liable to pay gift tax. [The Supreme Court did not decide question what would be position in law if there was first division of status in Hindu undivided family and it was followed up by division by metes and bounds in which one of. coparceners took properties worth less than what he would be entitled to under law.] member of Hindu undivided family has no definite share in family property before division and he cannot be said to diminish directly or indirectly value of his property or to increase value of property of any other coparcener by agreeing to take share lesser than what he would have got if he would have gone to court to enforce his claim. word' transaction' in clause (d) of section 2(xxiv) takes its colour from main clause; it must be transfer of property in some way. Section 2(xxiv) deals with transfer of properties in various ways and not any other transactions. words'disposition','conveyance,' assignment',' settlement',' delivery' and'payment', are all used to indicate some of modes of transfer of property. interpretation clause which extends meaning of word does not take away its ordinary meaning. interpretation clause is not meant to prevent word receiving its ordinary, popular and natural sense whenever that would be properly applicable, but to enable word as used in statute, when there be properly applicable, but to enable word as used in statute, when there is nothing in context or subject-matter to contrary, to be applied to some things to which it would not ordinarily be applicable. Words in section of statute are not to be interpreted by having those words on one hand and dictionary in other. In spelling out meaning of words in section, one must take into consideration setting in which those terms are used and purpose they are intended to serve. In interpreting tax laws, courts merely look at words of section; if case clearly comes within section, subject is taxed and not otherwise." decision in Getti Chettiar's case [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC), has been referred to in Kantilal Trikamlal's case [1976] 105 ITR 92 (SC). below- extracted excerpt from decision would indicate that in Kantilal Trikamlal's case, Supreme Court has not differed from, rather confirmed, view taken in Getti Chettiar's case [1971] 82 ITR 599 (p. 104): " Shri Desai and also Shri Kaji, appearing for accountable person in respective cases, urged that this expansive interpretation taking liberties with traditional jural concepts is contrary to this court's pronouncement in Getti Chettiar's case [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC). That was case under Gift-tax Act, 1958, and construction of section 2(xxiv), fell for decision. Certainly, many of observations there, read de hors particular statute, might reinforce assessee's stand. This court interpreted expression'transfer of property' in section 2(xxiv) and held that expression'disposition' used in that provision should be read in context and setting of given statute. very fact that'disposition' is treated as mode of transfer takes legal concept along different street, if one may use such phrase from one along which that word in Estate Duty Act is travelling. Mr. justice Hegde rightly observed, if we may say so with respect, that: 'Words in section of statute are not to be interpreted by having those words in one hand and dictionary in other. In spelling out meaning of words in section, one must take into consideration setting in which those terms are used and purpose that they are intended to serve.' (pp. 605- 606). word' transaction' in section 2(24) of Gift-tax Act takes its colour from main clause, that is, it must be a'transfer' of property in some way. Since partition is not transfer in ordinary sense of law, court reached conclusion that mere partition with unequal allotments not being transfer, cannot be covered by sec- tion 2(xxiv). close reading of that provision and judgment will dissolve mist of misunderstanding and disclose danger of reading observations from that case for application in instant case. language of section 2(15), Explanation 2, is different and wider and reasoning of Getti Chettiar's case [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC), cannot, therefore, control its amplitude. It is perfectly true that in ordinary Hindu law partition involves no conveyance and no question of transfer arises when all that happens is severance in status and common holding of property by coparcener is converted into separate title of each coparcener as tenant-in-common. Nor does subsequent partition by metes and bounds amounts to transfer. controlling distinction consists in difference in definition between Gift-tax Act (section 2(xxiv)) and Estate Duty Act (section 2(15))." We may also state before parting with this discussion that it is undisputed that aforementioned members formed HUF. It is settled position in Hindu law that joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. joint Hindu family may be composed of smaller or branch joint families, and it may constitute apex joint family. In instant case, all these members, referred to hereinabove, constitute apex HUF. It is also well settled that wife cannot herself demand partition, but if partition does take place between her husband and her sons, she is entitled to receive share equal to that of son. In this view of matter, all these members of HUF were entitled to share in partition. It would not be out of place to mention here that this position is clear from discussion in Parts 2 and 4 intituled respectively as Persons Entitled to Share on Partition " and " Allotment of Shares of. Chapter XVI of Mulla's Hindu Law, fourteenth edition, particularly paragraphs 306, 307, 315 and 321 at pp. 397, 404 and 407, respectively, of this Chapter. In light of foregoing discussion, question is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee and against Department. No order as to costs. *** COMMISSIONER OF GIFT-TAX v. GOPIJI LAXMICHAND