Judgment :- 1. This is a reference made by the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal under S.60 (1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 on the application of the assesses. The question referred is: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal was justified in law in including the sum of Rs.3,600/-as agricultural income in the assessment of the Hindu Undivided Family represented by its Kartha S. A. Ramaraj." 2. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family; and its income for the assessment year 1964-65 with which we are concerned in this case consists of income from its own lands and income received from registered firms of which the family was a partner. Sri. S. A. Ramaraj, the Kartha of family also received an income of Rs. 3,600/-as remuneration as managing partner of one of the said firms. It is not disputed that this sum of Rs. 3,600/-would be the income of the Hindu Undivided Family. The only question is whether it is agricultural income or non-agricultural income. A reading of the definition of agricultural income in the Act is sufficient to say that remuneration received by a person for managing agricultural property would not be agricultural income. The position is also well settled by a number of decisions. Reference may be made to the decision of the Patna High Court in E. C. Danby v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (1944) 12 ITR. 351, the decision of the Privy Council in Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City (1948) 16 ITR. 380 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharajaddiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (1961) 41 ITR. 169. 3. In the result, we answer the question referred to this Court in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as required by S.60 (6) of the Act.