sum and substance of all grounds raised by assessee in this appeal under GT Act, is that property given by assessee late Smt. Pritam Kaur to her sons should not be subjected to Gift-tax. Brief facts in background of case are that Pritam Kaur was first wife of Bhan Singh. Since Bhan Singh had no male issue from her, he married again and whatever land was held by Bhan Singh, half of it was given to Pritam Kaur f o r her social security. She originally came from Pakistan. However, subsequently she was blessed with two sons and family migrated to India. After she migrated from Pakistan, in exchange of land left by her there, she got some land in India. These two sons who were born to Pritam Kaur were after she migrated to India, whose names were Manmohan Singh and Amarjit Singh. contention of assessee was that shares were claimed by these two sons from her mother out of land which was given to her by her husband in Pakistan. They filed civil suit in Court of sub-Judge, Bassi, who awarded decree i n favour of two brothers. GTO in course of Gift-tax proceedings observed that land which was given to two sons through Court decree was exclusive property of Pritam Kaur and two sons by their birth never acquired any right in said land. Since said land, according to GTO, was transferred without any consideration, same was subjected to Gift- tax. When matter came before AAC, he also confirmed finding of GTO. Value of said land was taken by GTO at Rs. 72,000, which was accepted by AAC at Rs. 60,000. It is said action of AAC which was disputed before us by ld. counsel for assessee counsel for Shri H. S. Sidhu, who first contended that said transfer could not be subjected to gift-tax as two sons of Pritam Kaur got land out of family settlement. Moreover, he submitted that said transfer was nerver registered under Transfer of Property Act. He also attacked valuation of land in question and submitted that there was encumbrance of Rs. 22,000, which was subsequently discharged by two alleged donee. He relied on case of Banarsi Lal Aggarwal vs. GTO (1985) 23 TTJ (Chd) 215: (1985) 14 ITD 475 (Chd) and Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC). ld. Departmental Representative Mr. M. P. Singh, on other hand, submitted that registration in such cases necessary under GT Act. He relied on cases of G. V. Krishna Rao & Ors. v. First Addl. GTO (1968) 70 ITR 812 (AP) and Sirehmal Nawalkha vs. CIT (1985) 47 CTR (Raj) 182: (1985) 156 ITR 714 (Raj). He submitted that even as per Banarasi Lal Aggarwal vs. GTO (1985) 23 TTJ (Chd) 215: (1985) 14 ITR 475 (Chd), it has been held by Tribunal that collusive Court decree could not be binding on Department. Moreover, according to him, these two sons of Pritam Kaur were not entitled to said land and family settlement could not arise. After taking into consideration rival submissions and looking to facts in background of issue, we find that dispute pertains to agricultural land which was subject matter of family settlement, which is immovable property. Valuation of said land was undoubtedly more than Rs. 100 and there is no controversy about fact that there was no transfer of said land. In case family settlement is considered as non est, it could not be collusive. Then what plainly survives is that there was no transfer of said land and in light of said fact in background, there cannot be any gift which could be subjected to tax. We had occasion to deal with this issue in Banarasi Lal Aggarwal vs. GTO (1985) 23 TTJ (Chd) 215: (1985) 14 ITD 475 (Chd) in which facts were almost identical. There was family settlement in respect of which we held in said case that Court decrees which was only collusive one may be binding on members of families for determination of civil rights but same was not binding on IT Department. But regarding absence of registration in said case, we made following observations: "As regards assessee s contention regarding absence of registration, it has been held by Punjab High Court in Mr. Parkash Wati vs. Maya Devi AIR 1953 Punj 304 (paragraph No. 4) (DB) that with regard to gift of immovable property, s. 123 of Transfer of Property Act provides that irrespective of value of property, transfer "must be effected only by registered instrument signed by or on behalf of donor and attested by atleast two witnesses. In present case, transfer had not been registered as provided under s. 123 of Transfer of Property Act. In absence of registration duly attested by at least two witnesses, gift was not valid. Thus, it could not be termed as gift within meaning of s. 2(xii) so as to attract could not be termed as gift within meaning of s. 2(xii) so as to attract levy of gift-tax." From above observation, it is clear that we had relied on Punjab High Court decision. It will hardly serve any purpose to deal with other aspects of matter as issue is also covered by Supreme Court decision in Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC) as per which it was held: ".......That title to land, buildings and pant and machinery and electrical fittings permanently embedded thereon could not pass to company till conveyance was executed and registered." Reliance of ld. Departmental Representative on G. V. Krishna Rao & Ors. . First Addl. ITO (1968) 70 ITR 812 (AP) is misplaced, due to distinction in facts. two important aspects of matter are family partition by decree of Court and non-registration. Once Revenue contends that Court decree was collusive, Revenue is not bound by it. In other words, it makes same non est. In that case, transfer becomes obligatory. In case of G. V. Krishna Rao & Ors. (supra), there was Hindu who had put self-acquired properties in common hotch potch of his HUF consisting of himself and his four sons, and later on effected partition of said properties. He also gifted cerate properties to his daughters. He filed gift tax return showing properties gifted to daughters only. He died before assessment was completed. GTO wanted to tax (sic) given to his four sons less 1/5th share of assessee. One of sons filed writ petition. One of finding of their Lordships was that: "......There is no provision in GT Act like s. 123 of Transfer of Property Act requiring instrument of gift of immovable property to be registered and attested by at least two witnesses. Consideration arising from definition of gift in Transfer of Property Act must not be imported while construing provisions of GT Act." But with above finding, their Lordships gave other finding that: ".....Partition of HUF does not involve transfer of any property or right to or interest therein but only adjustment of proprietary rights into specific shares." Their Lordships further went on to say that: ".......Throwing of self-acquired property into joint family property amounts to transfer of property and does not cease to be transfer within meaning of s. 2(xxiv)(d) of GT Act, simply because it is unilateral in nature." Revenue in instant case cannot blow hot and cold at one stage. It does not believe family settlement and calls decree to be collusive. Often it says that registration is not obligatory. For reasons given by us in detail in Banarsi Lal Aggarwal vs. GTO (1985) 14 ITD 475 (Chd),we annul assessment on basis that there was no registration of land which is subject-matter under consideration. Rajasthan High Court in case of Sirehmal Nawalkha (supra) also cannot further Revenue s case because on issue we have Punjab High Court decision and also Supreme Court decision. On strength of said decisions, action of ld. AAC is hereby reversed. In result, appeal is allowed. *** MANMOHAN SINGH AND AMARJIT SINGH v. GIFT TAX OFFICER