JUDGMENT 1. This reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty to answer the following questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that after the merger of the Indian States, the impartible estate ceased to exist ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that after the merger of the Indian States, the private properties of the Rulers belonged to the HUF, if the HUF was in existence ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that at the time of the death of H.H. Maharaja Shri Sumer Singhji, the HUF was in existence and so the private property in question at the time of the death of Shri Sumer Singhji was only HUF property and as such he was not competent to dispose of the same ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not deciding the legal issue before it whether H.H. Maharaja Shri Sumer Singhji at the time of his death was competent to dispose of the property which is stated to be property belonging to the HUF within the meaning of section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?" 2. His Highness Maharaja Shri Sumer Singhji of Kishangarh died on February 16, 1971. He was assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax during his lifetime. The accountable person filed the account of the estate of the deceased showing the status as Hindu undivided family. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty took the view that the deceased was the holder of an impartible estate and was, therefore, the absolute owner of the entire property. Accordingly, he was of the view that the entire estate and not merely a part of it passed on to the accountable person. Accordingly, the assessment was completed on the net principal value of the estate at Rs. 13,27,214. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, however, held that the property was ancestral in character and formed Hindu undivided family property, on account of which the deceased had only 1/4th share therein, which passed on his demise and not the entire property. Accordingly, the assessment was completed on the net principal value of the estate at Rs. 13,27,214. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, however, held that the property was ancestral in character and formed Hindu undivided family property, on account of which the deceased had only 1/4th share therein, which passed on his demise and not the entire property. On further appeal, the Tribunal has sustained that view. It has been held that the property, though initially impartible by custom, was ancestral in character and had become the property of the Hindu undivided family to which the deceased belonged. It was held that the earlier rule of primogeniture governing the property did not have the effect of depriving the property of the character of Hindu undivided family property at the time of the demise of the deceased. It was further held that the Hindu undivided family being in existence at the time of the demise of the deceased, the property was impressed with that character. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court including those in Madhav Rao Scindia's case, AIR 1971 SC 530 , laying down the law relating to such property. It was, therefore, held that only 1/4th share of the deceased in the property passed on his demise and not the entire property. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to point out any infirmity in the Tribunal's reasoning on the basis of which the conclusion is based. It is obvious that on this conclusion, it was unnecessary to decide the further question covered by the above-quoted question No. 4. 4. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified and that, for this reason, it was unnecessary to decide the point covered by the aforesaid question No. 4. 5. No order as to costs. *******