( 1 ) THIS reference under section of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, (Act 18 of 1958) (for short "the Act"), has arisen at the instance of the Revenue for our opinion on the question posed thus :" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the deed executed on 21/03/1970, partakes the nature of a family settlement and that the transaction was not a transfer or aliention liable to gift-tax ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no texable gift to the married daughter in spite of the transfer of agricultural lands being effected after a lapse of years after the marriage ?"the material facts in support of the reference are that the assessee, an individual, during the assessment year 1970-71 executed a partion deed on 21/03/1970, by which he gave away acres 9. 94 of wet of wet land to his married daughter, Smt. Sreedevi and acres 10. 40 of wet land to his unmarried daughter, Nagamani. Notice under section 16 (1) of the Act was issued calling upon the assessee to file his return. Accordingly, he filed nil return with a covering letter that there is no gift in the eye of law and that, therefore, he need not pay any Gift-tax. The Gift-tax Officer held that Sreedevi is a married daughter whose marriage has taken place long back and Nagamani is an unmarried daughter. Nagamani has only a claim for maintenance and, therefore, it cannot be treated as a partition as the assessee the sole surviving co-parcener. On that premise, he rejected the contention of the assessee and valued the property at Rs. 1,05,460 and excluded Rs. 10,000 under sections 5 (1) (vii) of the Gift-tax Act and assessed to gift-tax Rs. 95,460 and on appeal, the assessee was unsuccessful. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal found that a Hindu is under a legal obligation to make provision for maintenance of an unmarried daughter and also to make provision for a married daughter for fulfilling an earlier promise made at the time of the marriage. It is not necessary that every party taking a benefit under a family settlement must necessarily be shown to have, under the law, a claim to a share in the property. All that is necessary is that the parties must be related to one another in some way and have a possible claim to the property or even a semblance of a claim on some other ground as, say, affection. Therefore, it is in the nature of a family settlement. Accordingly, it was held that the transaction was not a transfer or alienation. Therefore, the question of paying gift-tax does not arise. At the instance of the Revenue, the above questions have been referred. It is also necessary to mention that assessee has no sons and is possessed of acres 40 of wet land at Attili, Tanuku Taluk, West Godavari District. Besides, he is also having a money-lending business. Sri. M. S. N. Murthy, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, contended that the document dated 21/03/1970, is styled as a partition deed and that the daughters must have a pre-existing right in the coparcenary. The unmarried daughter has only a right to maintenance. Therefore, it cannot be constructed to be a partition deed. Once it is constructed that is not a partition deed, it is necessarily to be constructed either as a settlement or as a gift. If it is a settlement or gift and when it is made to a daughter, it goes without saying that it is without consideration. It is, therefore, a gift within the meaning of section 2 (xii) of the Act and entitled only to the exclusion permissible under section 5 (1) (vii) of the Gift-tax Act. The assessee has got an obligation to maintain an unmarried daughter or an obligation to incur expenses incidentally at the time of marriage of the daughters. Moreover, the assessee has to establish custom among his caste to give property to daughters. The Gift-tax Officer has rightly considered this aspect.