JUDGMENT : U. N. SINHA, C. J. & K. B. N. SINGH, J. By two ORDER :s, dated the 25th November, 1965 and 12th December, 1966, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, & Patna Bench, have referred two consolidated statements of cases to this Court for opinion under Section 27 (i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. In the consolidated statement relating to wealth tax assessments for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 (numbered in this Court as Tax Cases No. 23 to 27 of 1966), sent at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, single question has been formulated for opinion as follows: "Whether, on the facts. and in the circumstances of the case, the debts of Rs.8000 and Rs.13011 due to the assessee from Shri A. K. Hazra and Sri N. Sahay, respectively, on the basis of the usufructuary mortgage held by the assessee, constituted assets in its hands and comprise part of its wealth ?" In the consolidated statement of cases relating to the same years (Numbered in this Court as Tax Cases No. 64 to 60 of 1967) sent at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred for opinion: "(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation payable under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is in law an 'asset' which could be included in the assessee's net wealth as defined in Section 2 (m) of the Wealth Tax ? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.1,11,747 and Rs.51,525 due to the assessee under the decrees against Sri A. H. Lal and D. D. Tulsi constitute his wealth for the purpose of the W. T. Act? (3) Whether the sum of Rs.32,266, the amount of Agricultural Income-tax due from the assessee falls for deduction in hands of the assessee in arriving at his total wealth ? (4) Whether the sum of Rs.1,45,375, Rs.20,001 Rs.32,000. Rs.58,967 and Rs.92,500 due from Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, Shri Gangeshwar Prasad Singh, Mahanth Mahabir Das, Sri Jamuna Prasad Missir, Sarjug Kumar, Kishore and Lakshmi Narain Singh and Raja Prithvichand Lal Chaudhary respectively fall for assessment in the hands of the assesses without the issue of any Zamindari Bonds and constitute part of his wealth? Rs.58,967 and Rs.92,500 due from Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, Shri Gangeshwar Prasad Singh, Mahanth Mahabir Das, Sri Jamuna Prasad Missir, Sarjug Kumar, Kishore and Lakshmi Narain Singh and Raja Prithvichand Lal Chaudhary respectively fall for assessment in the hands of the assesses without the issue of any Zamindari Bonds and constitute part of his wealth? (5) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs.1,80,000 received by the assessee in 1961 constitutes a part of his wealth ?" 2. The facts of the cases are connected matters and they are dealt with in this single ORDER :which will cover all the ten Tax Cases. The assessments were made on Sri Raghubar Narain Singh, in the capacity of trustee of Rai Bahadur Dalip Narain Singh's trust estate and the assessments were made in the status of an individual. As indicated above, the assessments were for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 in which the relevant dates of valuation were 20th September, 1956, 21st March 1958, 21st March 1959, 21st March 1960 and 20th March 1961, respectively. For the first assessment year, namely, 1957-58, the assessee had filed a return of wealth of Rs.447065. The Wealth Tax Officer determined the total wealth of the assessee at Rs.16,08,863. While computing the net wealth the wealth fax Officer included in the net wealth of the assessee, various amounts of money due under decrees which the assessee had obtained against certain debtors, as well as the compensation payable to him under the Bihar Land Reforms Act after valuing them. It may be mentioned that the assessee had appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter he had carried appeals to the Tribunal also and had obtained some relief in the process. For the subsequent assessment years of 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 similar considerations had come up before the Wealth Tax Officer, on the assessee filing separate returns and similar results had followed upto the Tribunal. In each year the assessee had claimed certain deductions, including an amount of Rs.32266 due as agricultural income tax. The latter sum has been consistently disallowed. While computing the net wealth, the Wealth Tax Officer had included the sums of Rs.8000 and Rs.13011 for the year 1957-58, due from Sri A. K. Hazara and Sri N. Sahay, respectively, on the basis of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the assessee, as its assets. The latter sum has been consistently disallowed. While computing the net wealth, the Wealth Tax Officer had included the sums of Rs.8000 and Rs.13011 for the year 1957-58, due from Sri A. K. Hazara and Sri N. Sahay, respectively, on the basis of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the assessee, as its assets. On the last point the assesses obtained relief from ~ the appellate Tribunal for the year 1957-58 and for that reason these two sums of money were excluded from the net wealth of the assessee for the subsequent assessment years and that point has given rise to the reference in Tax Cases no. 23 to 27 of 1966. On the other questions raised by the assessee, reference in Tax Cases no. 64 to 68 of 1967 have arisen. 3. After hearing the parties, some of the questions referred to this Court by the statements of cases dated the 12th December, 1966, were reframed as follows : “Question no. 2- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decrees obtained by the assessee against Shri A. H. Lal and Shri D. D. Tulsi for Rs. 1,11,747 and Rs.51,525 respectively, have been valued under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, by correctly applying the provisions of Section 7 of the Act for the purpose of including their va1ucs in the net wealth of the assesses ? Question no. 3- Whether the sum of Rs.32,266 the amount of Agricultural income-tax due from the assessee, falls for deduction in hands of the assessee in arriving at his total wealth for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 ? Question no.4-Whether the sums of Rs.597909 due from Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, Rs.40001 due from Sri Gangeshwar Prasad Singh, Rs.64000 due from Mahanth Mahabir Das, Rs.39773 due from Sri Lakshmi Narain Singh, Rs.2600 due from Sri Jamuna Prasad Missir, Rs.1250 due from Sri Sarjug Kumar, Rs.15344 due from Sri Nandkishore Singh, and Rs.388760 due from Raja Prithvichand Lal Chaudhury under claim decrees obtained against them by the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act are assets of the assessee within the meaning of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and have been valued under the said Act by correctly applying the provisions of Section 7 of the Act for the purpose of including their values in the net wealth of the assesses?”. 4. 4. I shall take up these Questions one by one, referred to this Court for opinion in Tax Cases no. 64 to 68 of 1967. 5. Question no.1-The answer to this question must be in the affirmative. It was so held in the case of (l)Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh V. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bihar and Orissa, reported in A.I.R. 1965 Patna 282 and not much could be urged by Sri Prem Lall appearing for the assessee to the contrary. This right of the assessee must, however, be valued under Section 7 of the Act. 6. Question no. 2- The facts relating to this question may be summarised as follows: The assessee had obtained civil court decrees for Rs.111747 and Rs.51525 against Shri A. H. Lal and Sri D. D Tulsi. The decrees are still pending execution. In the books of the assessee these two decretal amounts were shown as still outstanding. In connection with the decree obtained against Sri D.D. Tulsi, it had been contended before the Tribunal that at the instance of the Official Liquidator, the Calcutta High Court had issued a Garnishi ORDER :dated 13th January 1960 for setting off the assessee's liability to the Pacific Bank and, therefore, the decree did not represent wealth which could be valued under the Wealth Tax Act. It is noticed by the Tribunal that the ORDER :of the Calcutta High Court had been passed after the relevant dates of the first three assessment years and it held that even for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 the ORDER :of attachment could not indicate that the value of the decree was "nil", as was the assessee's case. Hence, the decree against Sri D. D. Tulsi was valued by the Wealth Tax Officer at Rs.51525. With respect to the decree against Sri A. H. Lal, it was noticed that the attachment ORDER :passed by the Calcutta High Court was on the 21st June, 1961, that is to say, even after the valuation date for the assessment year 1961-62. This decree was, therefore, valued by the Wealth Tax Officer, at the figure of Rs.111747. The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that two decrees have been erroneously valued and the principles for valuation laid down by Section 7 (i) of the Wealth Tax Act have not been followed. This decree was, therefore, valued by the Wealth Tax Officer, at the figure of Rs.111747. The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that two decrees have been erroneously valued and the principles for valuation laid down by Section 7 (i) of the Wealth Tax Act have not been followed. According to the learned counsel for the Wealth Tax Commissioner, the decrees have been correctly valued under Section 7 (2) (a) of the Act, inasmuch as the two decrees continued in the books of the assessee at their full value. It will be convenient, at this stage, to reproduce the relevant sections of the Wealth Tax Act here : "7 (i). Subject to any rules made in this behalf, the value of any asset, other than cash, for the purposes of this Act, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Wealth Tax Officer it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1)- (a) Where the assesses is carrying on a business for which accounts are maintained by him regularly, the Wealth Tax Officer may, instead of determining separately the value of each asset held by the assessee in such business, determine the net value of the assets of the business as a whole having regard to the balance -sheet of such business as on the valuation date and making such adjustments therein as may be prescribed. (b) Where the assessee carrying on the business, is a company not resident in India and a computation in accordance with Clause (a) cannot be made by reason of the absence of any separate balance-sheet drawn up for the affairs of such business in India, the Wealth-tax Officers may take the net value of the assets of the business in India to be that proportion of the net value of the assets of the business as a whole wherever carried on determined as aforesaid as the income arising from the business in India during the year ending with the valuation date bears to the aggregate income from the business wherever arising during that year. " In our opinion, these two decrees have not been valued under Section 7(2) of the Act at all and the Wealth Tax Officer had purported to value these decrees under Section 7(1) of the Act. " In our opinion, these two decrees have not been valued under Section 7(2) of the Act at all and the Wealth Tax Officer had purported to value these decrees under Section 7(1) of the Act. This is clear from the ORDER :of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1957-58, in which Paragraph 22 reads as follows: “The learned counsel submitted that the Decree, in the circumstances, did not represent 'Wealth'. The Decree itself was not saleable and the onus was on the Income-tax Department to arrive at the market •value under Section 7(1). So far as the assessee was concerned, they valued it at 'nil'." If the decrees were valued under Section 7(1), it is obvious that they have not been valued according to the requirements of that provision of law. Merely because the assessee had shown the fun decretal amounts in his books as still due, that would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that they would be valued at those sums without taking into consideration the hazards for realisation of the decrees. For instance, the decree obtained against Sri D. D. Tulsi was dated the 16th April, 1952, and that decree has• not yet been executed. Similarly, the decree against Sri A.H. Lal is still in the process of execution land the Wealth Tax Officer was bound to take into consideration such matter in valuing the decrees under Section 7(1) of the Act. The Wealth Tax Officer was bound to estimate the price that the decrees would have fetched, if sold in the open market on the valuation dates, in a manner as might reasonably be calculated to obtain for the vendor the best price of the property. The answer to this question is in the negative. 7. Question no.3- The amount of Rs.32,266 could not be deducted as a debt owned by the assessee on any of the valuation dates under Section 2(m) of the Act, as this was outstanding for a period of more than twelve months on the earliest valuation date, namely, the 20th September, 1956. The Wealth Tax Officer mentioned in his ORDER :for the assessment year 1957-58 that there was no evidence as to when the liability for the agricultural income tax owned by the assessee arose and, therefore, this claim was disallowed. The same point was repeated in the assessment of the subsequent years. The Wealth Tax Officer mentioned in his ORDER :for the assessment year 1957-58 that there was no evidence as to when the liability for the agricultural income tax owned by the assessee arose and, therefore, this claim was disallowed. The same point was repeated in the assessment of the subsequent years. But, the learned counsel for the assessee has claimed a deduction of this liability in each year, on the strength of a recent Full Bench decision of this Court, in the case of (2) Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh V. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bihar and Orissa, reported in 1972 Bihar Law Journal Reports 137. It is contended that in estimating the value of the assessee's asset for each of the four years in question, this• amount ought to have been deducted as a liability, as all hazards in the way of realising the assets of the assessee must be taken into consideration for valuing the assets under Section 7 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act. This point seems to be covered by the Full Bench decision, mentioned above, as urged on behalf of the assessee. Question no. (iii), in that case, was to the following effect: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in including in the assessee's net wealth a positive figure, on account of Zamindary compensation without taking into consideration the arrears of agricultural income tax instead of taking the figure or compensation receivable from Government of Bihar at nil." There also the arrears of agricultural income-tax was not taken into consideration under Section 2(m) of the wealth Tax Act. But, even then S. P. Singh J. held that the taxing authority had erred in valuing compensation payable to the assesses of that case at 65 per cent of the fact value, without taking into account the restrictions and disadvantages attached to his right which would affect the market valut. S. P. Singh, J. stated in this context thus; "Section 7 lays down that the estimated value of any asset, for the purposes of the Act, is the price which the asset would fetch if sold in open market on the valuation date. S. P. Singh, J. stated in this context thus; "Section 7 lays down that the estimated value of any asset, for the purposes of the Act, is the price which the asset would fetch if sold in open market on the valuation date. If the asset is subject to certain disadvantage or restriction on the valuation date, certainly the price which it would fetch in open market will be less than the price if (Sic) it would fetch if it would have been free from such disadvantage and restriction. My learned brother B.D. Singh, J. has discussed in detail with reference to the relevant provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and held that the dues which an intermediary owes to the State Government are liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation payable to him by the State Government. The intermediary's right to receive compensation as an asset. therefore, is subject to those disadvantages and restrictions and liable to fetch a lower price in open market then what it can fetch, had it been free from those disadvantages and restrictions. The dues of agricultural income tax which the assesses was liable to pay to the State Government are certainly, therefore, to be taken into account in estimating the value of his compensation as an russet." In view of this decision, the answer to question no. 3 must be in affirmative for the years in question. 8. For answering question no.4, a little of the previous history of the hearing of the cases has to be narrated. We had heard learned counsel for the parties earlier and by ORDER :dated the 14th April 1971, we had called for a supplementary statement of case from the Tribunal by stating thus : "In question no. 4, five sums of money have been mentioned, namely, Rs. 1,45,375, Rs.20,001, Re. 32,000, Rs.58, 967 and Rs.92, 500. But, in giving the names of the debtors, more than five names have been mentioned. The Appellate Tribunal should, therefore, be more precise and state what sums are said to be due from each of the eight debtors mentioned in this question. [We assume that the name Kishore has been mentioned for Nandkishore Singh]. 32,000, Rs.58, 967 and Rs.92, 500. But, in giving the names of the debtors, more than five names have been mentioned. The Appellate Tribunal should, therefore, be more precise and state what sums are said to be due from each of the eight debtors mentioned in this question. [We assume that the name Kishore has been mentioned for Nandkishore Singh]. The appellate tribunal should also state more precisely how these amounts are said to be due, as, apparently these, sums do not represent the original dues That is to say, if these amounts due are based on civil court decrees, the matter may be specifically mentioned. If they are due on claims adjudicated under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, that may also be specifically mentioned. If any amount is merely due on loan, or any other kind of decrees, that should also be specifically mentioned. Then, the appellate tribunal should also clearly state what value was arrived at, by the Wealth Tax Officer, with respect to each item. If any valuation arrived at by the Wealth Tax Officer was amended by the appellate authority, the amended valuation should be mentioned item by item. If that sum was subsequently varied by the Appellate Tribunal, that must also be specifically mentioned, taking each item separately." The Tribunal has now sent up a supplementary statement of the case and the relevant portion of it may be usefully quoted here. "3. The names of the debtors and the amounts standing against them are stated below: (1) Tikait Girja Pd. Singh Rs.1.45,375 (2) Gangeshwar Pd. Singh Rs.20,001 (3) Mahanth Mahabir Das Rs.32,000 (4) (i) Jamuna Pd. Misser Rs. 2,600 (ii) Nandkishore Singh Rs.1,250 (iii) Nandkishore Singh Rs.15,344 (iv) Lakshmi Narain Singh Rs.39,773 Rs. 58,967 (5) Raja Prithvichand Lal Choudhary Rs.92,500 In the above question, one debtor is mentioned as 'Kishore' who stands for 'Shri Nand Kishore Singh' and in the details he is marked under item no. 4 (iii). The item no. (4) in respect of four debtors, the total of which amounts to Rs.58, 967/- requires a little clarification. In the question of law, the Tribunal has mentioned the amounts standing against these names at Rs. 58,967/- which appears to be incorrect. This was the amount which was stated to be due against these persons. 75% of this amount which comes to Rs.44,226/- was added by the Wealth Tax Officer. In the question of law, the Tribunal has mentioned the amounts standing against these names at Rs. 58,967/- which appears to be incorrect. This was the amount which was stated to be due against these persons. 75% of this amount which comes to Rs.44,226/- was added by the Wealth Tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Com• missioner took it at 50% and thus added Rs.29.484/-. The amount stood as confirmed by the Tribunal, against which a reference is sought by the assesses. The breakup of Rs.29,484/- is as hereunder : (i) Jamuna Pd. Missir Rs.1,300 (ii) Sarjug Kumar 625 (iii) Nand Kishore Singh Re. 7,672 (iv) Lakshmi Narain Singh Rs. 19,887 Rs. 29,484/- 4. Further, the High Court has asked the origin and nature of the loans and the treatment thereof by the Wealth Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. For this, the matter is incorporated in Annexure 'A' which is made a part of the statement of the case." After receipt of the supplementary statement of the case this question was reframed and I shall now deal with each of the items covered by this question separately. The history of the sum due from Tikait Girja Prasad Singh has been mentioned in Annexure A to the supplementary statement of the case as follows ; “In 1947, a loan of Rs.5,68, 000/-was taken by Court of Wards of Tikait Girja Prasad Singh through the Manager of the Estate under a simple mortgage of the entire Gawan Estate T. No. 11 consisting of 226 villages. Before the loan was repaid, the Estate vested in the State under Bihar Land Reforms Act on 28.5.52. The assessee's claim was allowed u/s 14 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act by the Sub Judge, Claims Officer, Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, for the principal amount of Rs.5,19,775/12/- and for interest at Rs.97, 706/14/-. Some amount was paid by the JUDGMENT : debtor and the amount finally due was Rs.5,97,909/5/-. The assessee's claim was allowed u/s 14 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act by the Sub Judge, Claims Officer, Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, for the principal amount of Rs.5,19,775/12/- and for interest at Rs.97, 706/14/-. Some amount was paid by the JUDGMENT : debtor and the amount finally due was Rs.5,97,909/5/-. When the matter under Claim Appeal No. 75/1956 went to the Hon'ble High Court, the High Court decided the claim of the assessee to be somewhere between Rs.2 lakhs to Rs 3 lakhs." On the observation made by this Court in the Claim Appeal, the Wealth Tax Officer stated in the assessment ORDER :for the year 1957-58, that, as the assessee was entitled to zamindari compensation in respect of the zamindari of Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, which bas vested in the Government, the value of the compensation of rupees three lacs at 75 per cent for the consideration of wealth-tax assessment would be Rs.2, 25,000 and this must be added to the assessee's net wealth. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed that the Government had not determined the compensation of Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, but accepting the principle adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer, took 50 per cent of rupees three lacs as the assessee's net wealth under this item. The Appellate Tribunal held that the zamindari compensation of Tikait Girja Prasad Singh would range from rupees two lacs to three lacs and, therefore, it would take the zamindari compensation at Rs. 2,50,000 and estimate the market value thereof at 58.15 per cent, namely, Rs. 145375. This amount was ORDER :ed to be added by the Appellate Tribunal. The approach with respect to this item appears to be quite erroneous. From some stray observations in Claim Appeal No. 75 of 1956 it could not be concluded that Tikait Girja Prasad Singh would get rupees two to three lacs as his compensation, without any other material on record. It was the duty of the Wealth Tax Officer to apply his mind with respect to this item of claim decree and ascertain on proper materials what would have been the price, if sold in the open market on the relevant date. It was the duty of the Wealth Tax Officer to apply his mind with respect to this item of claim decree and ascertain on proper materials what would have been the price, if sold in the open market on the relevant date. When the assessee has a claim decree for a particular sum of money against his debtor, the Wealth Tax Officer should 'have ascertained the price that a reasonable person would have paid for it on the relevant date, considering that this claim decree can only be satisfied, wholly or-partly, from the compensation which the debtor would receive under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In our opinion, all the three authorities who have considered this item, have approached this part of the case on wrong principles. The claim decree is no doubt an asset of the assessee, but it has been valued wrongly, without correctly applying the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act. In Annexure A to the supplementary statement of the case Rs. 40,000 due from Sri Gangeshwar Prasad Singh has been dealt with as follows: "On 16-12-1929, a loan of Rs.74,500 was given to the Executors of the Estate of Tejendra Narain Singh by executing a simple mortgage bond. Before the loan was repaid, the estate vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the claim was assessed at Rs.40,001/- in terms of comprise decree in Misc. Judicial Case No. 68/3 of 54/55 in the court of Sub Judge, Bhagalpur, under the Bihar Land Reforms Act." The Wealth Tax Officer had valued this claim decree at 75 percent of its face value and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced this to 50 per cent of the face value of the decree and this was affirmed by the Tribunal. For the same reason that we have given while dealing with the claim decree against Tikait Girja Prasad Singh, it must be held that the method of valuing the claim decree obtained against Gangeshwar Prasad Singh has been erroneous, although it is an asset of the assessee for the purpose of valuing under the Wealth Tax Act. Rs. 64,000 due from Mahanth Mahabir Das has been mentioned in Annexure A as follows : "Rs. 32,000 loan was taken by Mahanth Mahabir Das against two mortgage bonds against mortgage of zamindari interest. Rs. 64,000 due from Mahanth Mahabir Das has been mentioned in Annexure A as follows : "Rs. 32,000 loan was taken by Mahanth Mahabir Das against two mortgage bonds against mortgage of zamindari interest. After the zamindari vested in the State the claim was settled at Rs. 64,000 vide JUDGMENT : dated 8-2-57 in Claim Case No. 21/1 of 54/55 of 56 before the Claims Officer Sub Judge, Bhagalpur, under the Bihar Land Reforms Act." The Wealth Tax Officer calculated 75 per cent of this amount as the value of this claim decree and this was reduced to 50 per cent by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the ORDER :was confirmed by the Tribunal. The dues from Jamuna Prasad Missir Saryug Kumar, Nandkishore Singh and Lakshmi Narain Singh have been dealt with in Annexure A as follows: "Jamuna Prasad Missir-A sum of Rs.2,600 was given loan to Jamuna Pd. on execution of a sudbharna bond dt.9-6-28. After zamindari vested in the State, the claim was settled at Rs. 2,600/-under the Bihar Land Reforms Act vide Case No. 297/26 of 54/55 before the Divisional Munsif Claim Officer, Monghyr. Saryug Kumar-Saryug Kumar took a loan of Rs.1250/- on execution of a mortgage bond against security of zamindari interest. The claim in this case was assessed at Rs. 1,250/- under the Bihar Land Reforms Act vide Case No. 298/27 of 54/55 before the Claim Officer, Monghyr. Nandkishore Singh-Nandkishore took loan on the mortgage of zamindari interest. The claim was assessed at Rs. 15,344/- under the Bihar Land Reforms Act vide Misc. Case No. 33/37 of 55/56 before the Sub Judge Claim Officer, Bhagalpur. Lakshmi Narain Singh---Lakshmi Narain Singh took a loan of Rs. 40,000 in 1923 on execution of a mortgage bond. The claim was determined at Rs.39 773- under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, vide Claim Case No. 27/55 before the Sub Judge Claim Officer, Bhagalpur, Bhagalpur Division." The Wealth Tax Officer calculated 75 per cent of these claim decrees for valuing them, which were reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to 50 per cent of the decrees. These calculations were upheld by the Tribunal. For the reasons given earlier, each of this calculation was made erroneously and how the Wealth Tax Officer should have proceeded in the matter has been indicated earlier, on the footing, of course, that all the claim decrees were assets of the assessee. These calculations were upheld by the Tribunal. For the reasons given earlier, each of this calculation was made erroneously and how the Wealth Tax Officer should have proceeded in the matter has been indicated earlier, on the footing, of course, that all the claim decrees were assets of the assessee. The last item under this question was the due against Raja Prithvichand Lal Chaudhary. This matter has been mentioned in Annexure A as follows: "P. C. Lal took a loan against a sudbharna deed, dt.31-7-34 mortgaging Milkiat interest. After the Milkiat vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act vide Case No. 5/52 before the Claim Officer, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, a decree was passed for Rs.3,88, 760 (Sic) the claim payable to Raja P.C. Lal was determined at Rs.1,85,000/-." In this case also the Wealth Tax Officer calculated 75 per cent of Rs.1,85,000 to be the value of this decree and this was reduced to 50 per cent by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. This was affirmed by the Tribunal. Here also the decree has been valued erroneously, as indicated above, although this was also an asset of the assesses. Therefore, in all the decrees covered by question no.4, the Wealth Tax Officer should have applied the same test that we have laid down while dealing with the claim decree obtained by the assessee against Tikait Girja Prasad Singh. 9. Question No. 5-It is admitted that the assessee has received bond for a sum of Rs.1,80,000 in 1961. There is no doubt that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative. Therefore, this amount was correctly valued in the assessment year 1961-62. 10. Now I shall deal with the question referred for opinion in Tax Cases No. 23 to 27 of 1966. The answer to this question must be in the affirmative. The facts mentioned in the appellate ORDER :of the Tribunal are as follows. A debt of Rs.8000 was due from Sri Amal Krishna Hazra. The assessee had obtained a usufructuary mortgage from the debtor and had leased the property back to the latter. The answer to this question must be in the affirmative. The facts mentioned in the appellate ORDER :of the Tribunal are as follows. A debt of Rs.8000 was due from Sri Amal Krishna Hazra. The assessee had obtained a usufructuary mortgage from the debtor and had leased the property back to the latter. The Tribunal stated that it has been held by the Patna High Court that no mortgage suit can be filed and that under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act the creditor cannot proceed against the debtor for the mortgage money and, in those circumstances, the sum of Rs.8000 had to be excluded from the assessee's net wealth. Similarly, Rs.13011 was due from Sri Nityanand Sahai and this amount was also excluded from the assessee's net wealth. The point has now been decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of (3) Mathuralal V.Keshar Bai, reported in A. I. R. 1971 Supreme Court 310. Their Lordships have stated as follows in connection with the property given in usufructuary mortgage and leased back : "In all such cases the leasing back of the property arises because of the mortgage with possession but we find ourselves unable to hold that the mortgagee does not secure to himself any rights under the deed of lease but must proceed on his mortgage in case the amount secured to him under the deed of lease is not paid. If the security is good and considered to be sufficient by the mortgagee there is no reason why he should be driven to file a suit on his mortgage when he can file a suit for realisation of the moneys due under the rent note. The position of the creditor is strengthened whereas in this case the interest on the amount of the mortgage is not the same as the rental fixed. If during the continuance of the security the mortgagee wants to sue the mortgagor on the basis of the rent note and take possession himself or to induct some other tenant thereby securing to himself the amount which the mortgagor had covenanted to pay, there can be no legal objection to it. Under the provisions of ORDER :34, Rule 4, he cannot deprive the mortgagor of his right to redeem excepting by the proceeding on his mortgage. Under the provisions of ORDER :34, Rule 4, he cannot deprive the mortgagor of his right to redeem excepting by the proceeding on his mortgage. Although we express no final opinion on this point it may be that a mortgagee who secures a decree for payment of arrears of rent cannot put the property to sale for realisation of the amount decreed but there can be no objection to his suing for possession if the rent note entitles him to do so. So long as the mortgagor had a right to redeem the mortgage he can always payoff the mortgagee and get back possession. This position would continue so long as the property is not sold under a final decree for sale under the provisions of ORDER :34, Civil P.C." Therefore, the appellate tribunal was in error in excluding the two sums of money due from A. K. Hazra and N. Sahay altogether from the assessee's net wealth. These two dues must, however, be valued under Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act and in valuing these dues it must be considered whether the assessee could obtain decrees on his rent notes and sue for possession based on them. No facts were considered by the Tribunal in excluding these two dues from the net wealth of the assessee and the answer to this question cannot be given in any further detail. 11. Both the references are answered accordingly. References answered accordingly.