JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous civil Case No. 586 of 1971 (Satish Kumar and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal ). ( 2. ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has under section 256 (1) of the income-tax Act, 1961, in each of the two cases, stated the case, and referred the questions for the decision of this Court. ( 3. ) THE assessee in Misc. Civil Case No. 12 of 1972 is Madanlal Hindu undivided family, having more than one minor coparceners. The case relates to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, corresponding to the previous years ending 31 3-1960 and 31-3-1961, respectively. The assessee in Misc. Civil Case No. 586 of 1971, is M/s Satish Kumar and Co. , which for the years under reference is a registered firm. This case relates to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 corresponding to the period ending 31-10-1959 and 18-10-1960 respectively. ( 4. ) IN the statement of case in Misc. Civil case No. 12 of 1972 the genealogical table of Madanlal has been given. There was a business of the hindu undivided family under the name and style of Ramnarayan Gopal Das. One Gopal Das who is now dead had a wife named Tarabai and two sons madanlal and Ghanshyamdas. Ghanshyamdas was a minor and he was represented by his mother Tarabai. Thus Madanlal was the major coparcener in the Hindu undivided family. ( 5. ) AS partial partition is said to have been effected on 10-9-1958 of a sum of Rs 25,000 of the funds of the Hindu undivided family whereby Madanlal received Rs. 6,250, Ghanshyamdas Rs. 12,500 and Satish Kumar son of madanlal who also was a minor received Rs. 6,250. Documents (collectively marked as annexure C) in that behalf were executed on 11-9-1958 mentioning the fact of this partial partition. These documents have been attested by the notary Public. In these documents it is mentioned that Madanlal and Minor ghanshyamdas are the coparceners of the Hindu undivided family Madanlal ghanshyamdas. In this document Tarabai has been described as a guardian of minor Ghanshyamdas and that she took the amount of Rs. 12,500 in her capacity as a guardian of Ghanshyamdas. There is a further mention that rs. 6,250 have been received by Madanlal and his wife Padma Devi by way of a share of Satish Kumar their minor son. In this document Tarabai has been described as a guardian of minor Ghanshyamdas and that she took the amount of Rs. 12,500 in her capacity as a guardian of Ghanshyamdas. There is a further mention that rs. 6,250 have been received by Madanlal and his wife Padma Devi by way of a share of Satish Kumar their minor son. Neither of the two documents bear the signatures of Padma Devi wife of Madanlal. ( 6. ) ON 11-9-1958 a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Satish kumar and Co. was brought into existence of which Tarabai mother of Madanlal garg, Ghanshyamdas minor, Padma Devi wife of Madanlal and Satish Kumar son of Madanlal were the partners. Ghanshymdas and Satish Kumar being minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm. The profits were to be shared by the partners equally but in case of loss the same was to be borne by Tarabai and Padma Devi and thus the two minors were not liable for any loss in the business. ( 7. ) EACH of the four partners of the said Firm Satish Kumar and Co. had contributed Rs. 8,000 on 10-9-1958 towards the capital of the firm. The source of capital of Rs. 8,000 given by Padma Devi was the amount of gift received from Tarabai which had been given by her by debiting her account in the books of account of M/s Ramnarayan Gopaldas. Similarly by debiting her account in the books of account of Ramnarayan Ghanshyamdas by an amount of Rs. 1,750 on 10-9-1958 there was another gift of Rs. 1,750 to her grandson, Satish Kumar. Thus the source of capital of Rs. 8,000 by Satish Kumar was the sum total of rs. 6,250 received as a result of partial partition and Rs. 1,750 received by way of a gift from his grandmother. Madanlal had submitted a return in the status of an individual declaring share of profits from M/s Ramnarayan Ghanshyamdas and he had been assessed accordingly. ( 8. ) SUBSEQUENTLY, proceedings under section 147 (a) of the Income Tax act, 1961 were started against Madanlal as according to the Income Tax officer information came to his possession that share of profits of Madanlals wife Padma Devi and minor son Satish Kumar were to be included in the assessment of Madanlal in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family. ) SUBSEQUENTLY, proceedings under section 147 (a) of the Income Tax act, 1961 were started against Madanlal as according to the Income Tax officer information came to his possession that share of profits of Madanlals wife Padma Devi and minor son Satish Kumar were to be included in the assessment of Madanlal in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family. The reasons for inclusion of these amounts were inter alia that Madanlal was looking after the business of M/s Satish Kumar and Co. , he was signing agreements for purchase on behalf of that firm and that during appeal proceedings of m/s Ramnarayan Ghanshyamdas it had been admitted that M/s Satish Kumar and Co. had been formed for the benefit of Madanlal. The Income Tax officer, therefore, included the share income of Padma Devi and minor son satish Kumar, in the hands of Madanlal Hindu undivided family. ( 9. ) AGAINST the orders of the Income Tax Officer appeals were filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that share income of Padma Devi could not be included in the total income of Madanlal hindu undivided family. He also held that in fact the division as a result of the partial partition was between the two brothers i. e. minor Ghanshyam Das and Madanlal. On this finding he held that the contribution of Rs. 6,250 by satish Kumar in the firm came through Madanlal to his son. It had further been stated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that as a fact it was madanlal who was looking after the business of Satish Kumar and Co. because two of the partners of the firm were ladies and the other two were minors. He thus found that Satish Kumar represented family of Madanlal in the firm of satish Kumar and Co. He therefore excluded the share income of Padma devi wife of Madanlal from the firm of M/s Satish Kumar and Co. in the hands of the assessee and upheld the inclusion of the share income of Satish kumar in the said firm in the assessees hands. ( 10. ) BEING not satisfied, the assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. He therefore excluded the share income of Padma devi wife of Madanlal from the firm of M/s Satish Kumar and Co. in the hands of the assessee and upheld the inclusion of the share income of Satish kumar in the said firm in the assessees hands. ( 10. ) BEING not satisfied, the assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. There it was argued that the proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax act, 1961 were bad in law because the notice in that behalf was sent to madanlal referring to G I R number of the assessee relating to his individual status. It also was urged that when there had been a valid partial partition, as a result of which Satish Kumar had received money then the share income of Satish Kumar from the firm should not have been included in the total income of Madanlal Hindu undivided family. It also was urged that merely because some of the contracts of M/s Satish Kumar and Co were signed by madanlal it would not stand proved that Satish Kumar was a benamidar of the Hindu undivided family and further that when registration had been granted to Satish Kumar and Go. by holding it to be a genuine firm then there was no justification to find that Satish Kumar was a Benamidar of the assessee Madan-lal, Hindu undivided family. On behalf of the revenue it was urged that the said partial partition was only between Madanlal and Ghanshyamdas and from that it could not be said that there had been a partition amongst all the members of the family and further that unless there had been a partial partition of the smaller Hindu undivided family, the income of Satish Kumar could rightly be taxed in the hands of Madanlal. ( 11. ) THE Tribunal in its original order did not decide the question as regards the alleged invalidity of the notice but subsequently on a petition for rectification the Tribunal in its order rejected the contention holding that madanlal knew as to whom the notice had been issued and when he had acted on the basis of that notice the order of the Income Tax Officer could not be vitiated merely because of the mention of the wrong file number. The Tribunal also held that the share income of Satish Kumar from the firm of M/s Satish kumar and Co. The Tribunal also held that the share income of Satish Kumar from the firm of M/s Satish kumar and Co. could be included in the hands of Madanlal, Hindu undivided family. ( 12. ) HOWEVER, subsequently, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:- " (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there could be a partition or partial partition when there is only one major coparcener, the other two coparceners being minors and thus whether the Tribunal was right in holding that share of income of Satish Kumar from the firm of M Is Satish Kumar and Co. , could be included in the total income of the assessee Hindu Undivided Family relating to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment under section 147 (b) of the Act of 1961, had been legally made on the assessee (Hindu Undivided Family) ?" ( 13. ) IN Misc. Civil Case No. 586 of 1971 the statement of case refers to the facts which brought into existence the partnership firm M/s Satish Kumar and Co. as also the source of capital contributed by the different partners which have already been stated above and so they need not be repeated. It is further mentioned that in proceeding for disposal of the application under section 26-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 the Income Tax Officer granted registration to the assessee firm but he held that shares of income of padma Devi and Satish Kumar were to be included in the total income of madanlal Hindu undivided family. In the assessment cases the Income Tax officer held that Smt. Padma Devi and Satish Kumar have no personal interest in the shares held by them in the Firm and that they only represent Shri madanlal, the real owner. He, therefore, held that the share of profits of these two will be considered in the assessment of Madanlal, Hindu undivided family. ( 14. ) IN the appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the share income of Smt. Padma Devi could not be included in the total income of Madanlal Hindu undivided family but the share income of Satish Kumar could be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided family represented by Madanlal. ( 15. ( 14. ) IN the appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the share income of Smt. Padma Devi could not be included in the total income of Madanlal Hindu undivided family but the share income of Satish Kumar could be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided family represented by Madanlal. ( 15. ) THE assessee went up in second appeal before the Tribunal. The tribunal passed a common order in respect to the appeals filed by Madanlal hindu undivided family and Satish Kumar and Co. Later, on an application of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:- "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, share of profit of Satish kumar received from the Firm of M is Satish Kumar and Co. , could be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided family, relating to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively. " ( 16. ) BEFORE dealing with the questions referred to this Court we would like to observe that from the statement of case in Misc. Civil Case No. 12 of 1972, the first question could only be about the partial-partition and not a complete partition. In the facts as they are the question regarding complete partition is neither relevant nor does it arise out of the Tribunals order (See commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Anusuya Devi, 68 I T R 750 SC.) Similarly, in the case the question of partial partition only in so far as it relates to Madanlal and his minor son Satish Kumar is in issue. The partial partition effected in between Madanlal and his minor brother Ghanshyamdas represented by his mother Tarabai has been accepted all through including the Tribunal. What was urged before the Tribunal even on behalf of the Revenue was that the partial-partition was only in between Madanlal and Ghanshyamdas. Thus the issue before the Tribunal was whether the income of Satish Kumar from the firm M/s Satish Kumar and Co. could be added to the income of Madanlal, hindu undivided family. That being so, we decline to answer that part of question No. 1 in Misc. Civil C3se No. 12 of 1972 in so far as it relates to total partition and partition between Madanlal and Ghanshyamdas {commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Anusuya Devi. ( 17. could be added to the income of Madanlal, hindu undivided family. That being so, we decline to answer that part of question No. 1 in Misc. Civil C3se No. 12 of 1972 in so far as it relates to total partition and partition between Madanlal and Ghanshyamdas {commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Anusuya Devi. ( 17. ) IT would be convenient to dispose of the first question relating to partial-partition in Misc Civil Case No. 12 of 1972 along with the question referred to in Misc. Civil Case No. 586 of 1971. ( 18. ) IT is a settled law that partition between coparceners may be partial either as regards the persons making it or the property divided. The members of a Hindu joint family may sever their interest in respect of a part of the joint family property and yet retain their status of a joint family and hold the remaining properties of the undivided family. In Approvier alias Seetaramier v. Rama Subba Aiyan and others, 11 M I A 75. it has been held as follows:-"according to the true Constitution of an undivided Hindu family, no individual member of the family, whilst it remains undivided, can predicate of the joint and undivided property, that he has a certain definite share. The proceeds of undivided property must be brought to the common chest or purse, and there dealt with according to the modes of enjoyment by the members of the family. But if the members of an undivided family agree among themselves with regard to particular property, that it shall thenceforth be the subject of ownership, in certain defined shares, then the character of undivided property and joint enjoyment is taken away from the subject matter so agreed to be dealt with; and each member has thenceforth a definite and certain share in the estate, which he may claim to receive and enjoy in severalty, although the property itself has not been actually severed and divided. " ( 19. ) IN the instant case the assessee had relied upon documents collectively marked as Annexure- C to prove the partial partition not only between madanlal and his minor brother Ghanshyamdas represented by his mother tarabai, but also between himself and his minor son Satish Kumar. In Hari bakshi v. Babu Lal and another, AIR 1924 PC 126 at page 133. ) IN the instant case the assessee had relied upon documents collectively marked as Annexure- C to prove the partial partition not only between madanlal and his minor brother Ghanshyamdas represented by his mother tarabai, but also between himself and his minor son Satish Kumar. In Hari bakshi v. Babu Lal and another, AIR 1924 PC 126 at page 133. it has been held as follows :- "if their Lordships were to hold in this case that it is to be presumed in law that the separation and partition effected in 1903 by Jai Narain and his brother, Sanahi Ram, involved necessarily a separation between Jai Narain and his sons, their Lordships would, it appears to them, be introducing a novel principle into the law of joint Hindu families governed by the law of the Mitakshara, for which no authority has been brought to the attention of their Lordships. " In view of this, merely because of the partial-partition between Madanlal and ghanshyamdas, no inference of separation and partition between Madanlal and his minor son Satish Kumar can be drawn. ( 20. ) IN Maynes Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage (Tenth Edition) at page 558, para 446, a Hindu fathers right under the Mitakshara law, to effect a partition between himself and his sons without their consent has been held to be based on Mitakshara I, ii, 2. This was applied even in the case of partial partition in M. S. M. M. Meryappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 18 I T R 586. We however need not deal with this question because the assessee did not claim the partial-partition between himself and his son Satish Kumar having been effected on that basis. The case of the assessee was all through based on the documents marked as Annexure- C. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in kakumannu Pedasubhayya and another v. Kakumanu Akkamma and another, AIR 1958 SC 1042 . have considered the question relating to total partition where the coparcener is a minor. Their Lordships in para 12 at page 1048 observed as follows : - "the position will be clear when regard is had to what takes place when there is a partition outside Court. have considered the question relating to total partition where the coparcener is a minor. Their Lordships in para 12 at page 1048 observed as follows : - "the position will be clear when regard is had to what takes place when there is a partition outside Court. In such a partition, when a branch consisting of a father and his minor son becomes divided from the others, the father acts on behalf of the minor son as well; and the result of the partition is to effect a severance in status between the father and his minor son, on the one hand and the other coparceners, on the other. In that case, the intention of the minor to become separate from the coparceners other than his father is really expressed on his behalf by his father. But it may happen that there is a division between the father and his own minor son, and in that case, the minor would normally be represented by his mother or some other relation, and a partition so entered into has been recognised to be valid and effective to bring about a severance in status. The minor has no doubt the right to have the partition set aside if it is shown to have been prejudicial to him; but if that is not established, the partition is binding on him. Vide Balkishan Das v. Ram Narain Sahu, 30 IA 139 (PC) (L )." ( 21. ) IN the instant case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order had found that "though in the aforesaid narration both Madanlal and satish Kumar have shown to have received a sum of Rs. 6,250 each, in fact, the division of money is between Ghanshyam Das and Madanlal the two brothers. Accordingly, the contribution of Rs. 6,250 by Satish Kumar in the firm of M/s Satish Kumar and Co. came out of the till of Hindu undivided family of Madanlal and his sons. It has also been found as a fact that Madanlal did look after the business of M/s Satish Kumar and Co. because all the partners were ladies and minors. The above interest of Madanlal in the Firm M/s Satish kumar and Co. , is easily explained that he looked after the interest of his own family members of which Shri Satish Kumar was admitted to the benefits of partnership. " ( 22. because all the partners were ladies and minors. The above interest of Madanlal in the Firm M/s Satish kumar and Co. , is easily explained that he looked after the interest of his own family members of which Shri Satish Kumar was admitted to the benefits of partnership. " ( 22. ) THE Tribunal has not set aside the aforesaid finding of the Appellate assistant Commissioner. In their original order, dated 22-4-1970 (Annexure L) the Tribunal had observed that the "copy of the partial partition has not been brought on record and we do not know whether at the time of partition minors were represented by guardians". In their order, dated 12-10-1970 of rectification (Annexure N) the words substituted are "copy of the release deed of the amount partitioned duly attested by Notary public was filed by the assessees counsel in Hindi while representing the case before us. But while arguing the case the counsel of the assessee did not refer to it. " ( 23. ) IT is quite apparent that the reliance of the assessee in support of his claim of partial partition in between the father Madanlal and the minor son Satish Kumar were the two documents (collectively marked as Annexure-C) relating to partial partition. The title of the document, dated 11-9-1958 in hindi, describes only two persons viz. Madanlal and Tarabai as guardian of minor Ghanshyamdas. In the body of the document it describes Madanlal and Ghanshyamdas to be the coparceners of Hindu undivided family Madanlal ghanshyamdas. Subsequent to this what is mentioned is that "ham mukiran" meaning thereby Madanlal and Ghanshyamdas represented by his guardian (mother) Tarabai have received an amount of Rs. 25,000 which was the income standing to their credit as an income of joint family property, on 10-9-1958. The mode of receipt that has been mentioned in this document is that Rs. 12,500 have been received by Tarabai as representing minor Ghanshyamdas. As regards the remaining half what has been mentioned is that an amount of Rs. 6,250 has been received by Madanlal as his share and the balance of Rs. 6,250 has been paid by way of share of Satish Kumar, the minor son of Madanlal and that this amount has been received by Madanlal and his wife in their capacity as guardian of minor Satish Kumar. In this document the signatories are only two i. e. Madanlal and Tarabai. 6,250 has been paid by way of share of Satish Kumar, the minor son of Madanlal and that this amount has been received by Madanlal and his wife in their capacity as guardian of minor Satish Kumar. In this document the signatories are only two i. e. Madanlal and Tarabai. It does not bear any signatures of the mother of Satish Kumar who along with Madanlal in their capacity as guardian of minor Satish Kumar is said to have received the amount of Rs. 6,250 allegedly paid by way of share of Satish Kumar. According to this document the partial partition had been effected on 10-9-1958. This document does not show that in the partial partition of this amount of rs. 25,000 which according to the case of the assessee was effected as a result of an agreement, minor Satish Kumar was represented by any guardian. ( 24. ) THE other document marked as Annexure- C is also dated 11-9-1958 and has been described as a receipt. This is more or less an English version of the aforesaid document. In this also an amount of Rs. 6,250 by way of share of minor Satish Kumar has been stated to have been received by his father Madanlal and mother Padma Devi. But this document also does not bear the signatures of Padma Devi, the mother of Satish Kumar. If Satish kumar represented by his guardian was a party to the partial partition that took place on 10 9-1958, then normally such a reference would have found a place in the documents marked as Annexure- C. The absence of signatures of smt. Padma Devi, the mother of Satish Kumar who has been described as a guardian of the minor is also significant. Even in the entries in the books of account (Annexure- D) relating to this partial-partition, there are signatures of Madanlal and Tarabai, but they also do not bear the signatures of Smt. Padma Devi. ( 25. ) IN view of these circumstances the reason for the assessees counsel in not referring to these documents before the Tribunal was very obvious. They having not been referred to, there was no material to support the alleged agreement of partial-partition between Madanlal and his minor son Satish Kumar. ( 25. ) IN view of these circumstances the reason for the assessees counsel in not referring to these documents before the Tribunal was very obvious. They having not been referred to, there was no material to support the alleged agreement of partial-partition between Madanlal and his minor son Satish Kumar. However, as we have discussed above neither the documents, Annexure- C nor the entries in the books of accounts, Annexure- D prove the alleged partial-partition between Madanlal and his minor son, because there is no material to hold that in the alleged agreement of partial-partition, minor Satish Kumar was represented by his guardian. ( 26. ) IN Girjabai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj, ILR 43 Cal. 1031 (P C ). it has been held as follows :- "separation from the joint family involving the severance of the joint status so far as the separating member is concerned, with all the legal consequences resulting therefrom, is quite distinct from the de facto division into specific shares of the property held until then jointly. One is a matter of individual decision, the desire on the part of any one member to sever himself from the joint family and to enjoy the hitherto undefined or unspecified share separately from the others without being subject to the obligations which arise from the joint status; whilst the other is the natural resultant from his decision, the division and separation of his share, which may be arrived at either by private agreement among the parties, or on failure of that by the intervention of the Court. " ( 27. ) IN the instant case what we are concerned with is the actual partial-partition of Rs. 25,000 as a result of an agreement and not the severance of the status of jointness which is a matter of individual volition. There is no material to hold that in the alleged agreement of partial-partition between Madanlal and his minor son Satish Kumar, the latter was represented by his guardian. There could not be an agreement with the minor, and so there could not be a partial-partition between these two. That being so, we would answer question No. 1 in Misc. Civil Case No. 12 of 1972 and the question in Misc. There could not be an agreement with the minor, and so there could not be a partial-partition between these two. That being so, we would answer question No. 1 in Misc. Civil Case No. 12 of 1972 and the question in Misc. Civil Case No. 586 of 1971 as follow:-M. C. C. No. 12 of 1972 "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was no partial-partition between Madanlal and his minor son Satish Kumar. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that share of income of Satish Kumar from the firm of M/s. Satish Kumar and Co. could be included in the total income of the assessee (Hindu undivided family) relating to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. " m. C C. No. 586 of 1971 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case share of profit of Satish Kumar received from the Firm of M/s. Satish Kumar and Co. could be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided family relating to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively. " ( 28. ) COMING now to the second question in Misc. Civil Case No. 12/72 the contention of the assessee in that behalf was that the notice was issued to a wrong person and hence the assessment deserves to be set-aside. The Tribunal, though it did not discuss this question in its original appellate order, has decided it in its order of rectification, dated 12-10-1970. The Tribunal in that order has observed as follows :- "we do not find any justification for upholding this legal contention of the assessee. Notice had been sent to Madanlal Garg. When Madanlal Garg knew to whom the notice was issued and when he had acted on the basis of the notice, we do not find that the order of the Income Tax Officer can be vitiated merely because of wrong mentioning of the file number. " Thus the finding of the Tribunal is that Madanlal Garg knew as to whom the notice was issued and he accordingly complied with that notice. ( 29. ) THE only defect that was pointed out in the notice was that the file number referred therein pertained to Madanlal Garg in the status of an individual. " Thus the finding of the Tribunal is that Madanlal Garg knew as to whom the notice was issued and he accordingly complied with that notice. ( 29. ) THE only defect that was pointed out in the notice was that the file number referred therein pertained to Madanlal Garg in the status of an individual. It is not the case of the assessee that because of the said file number having been referred to, he was in any manner prejudiced or misled. The notice very well informed the assessee that it pertained to Madanlal Garg Hindu undivided family. The assessee acted on the basis of that notice and was accordingly assessed. Before the Tribunal a decision of their Lordships of the supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Adinarayana murty, was referred to and the Tribunal rightly found that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the facts of the case before their Lordships. In Murtis case (supra) the question was whether it was competent for the Income Tax Officer to issue second notice and continue proceedings therein ignoring the return which had already been filed by the assessee in pursuance of the first notice. In that decision the notice was issued to the assessee in his capacity as an individual while the correct status was that of Hindu undivided family. In the instant case before us, the notice was issued to Madanlal Hindu undivided family and not to the individual. Merely by mentioning the wrong file number the character of the notice as having been issued to Madanlal Hindu undivided family would not be changed. Thus the contention that the notice was issued to Madanlal in his capacity as an individual is wholly unfounded. In view of this we would answer question No. 2 in Misc. Civil Case No. 12 of 1972 as follows :-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment under section 147 (b) of the Act of 1961 had been legally made on the assessee (Hindu undivided family ). ( 30. ) A copy of the judgment shall be sent under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs of this reference. ( 30. ) A copy of the judgment shall be sent under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered.