Judgment :- R. Jayasimha Babu, J. One Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar, who was a member of a Hindu undivided family, died on January 24, 1970, leaving behind him, his wife, Kumara Rani Meenakshi Achi, his parents, Rani Meyyammai Achi and M. A. Muthiah Chettiar, and his brother, M. A. M. Ramasamy. By virtue of proviso to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, a notional partition was required to be effected among the members of the Hindu undivided family and after excluding l/3rd share of the deceased Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar the remaining 2/3rds alone belongs to the Hindu undivided family comprising of Raja Muthiah Chettiar, his wife, Rani Meyyammai Achi, and their son, M. A. M. Ramasamy. The estate duty assessments (?) of this Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1978-79 were initially made by excluding not only l/3rd value of the assets of the Hindu undivided family as it existed iraine-diately prior to the demise of Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar, but also deducting the estate duty payable on the estate left behind by Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar. Those orders of assessment were subsequently rectified by an order made under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, in which it was stated that the mistake in calculation has crept in, inasmuch as the share of the Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar in the property of the Hindu undivided family as it existed prior to his demise, had been excluded while determining the wealth of the Hindu undivided family comprising of Raja Muthiah Chettiar and M. A. M. Ramasamy and, consequently, the estate duty payable on that excluded portion should not be allowed as deduction while computing the net wealth of the Hindu undivided family of Raja Muthiah Chettiar and M. A. M. Ramasamy. The assessee unsuccessfully challenged that order in appeal. Further appeal to the Tribunal was equally without success. At the instance of the assessee the following questions have been referred to us : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer was right in invoking section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act and rectifying and withdrawing the deduction of estate duty liability originally allowed from the net wealth of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer was right in invoking section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act and rectifying and withdrawing the deduction of estate duty liability originally allowed from the net wealth of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate duty liability relating to l/3rd undivided share of the deceased coparcener cannot be deducted from the net wealth of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in not appreciating the fact that the assessee-Hindu undivided family continued to exist even after the death of a coparcener Kumara Rajah M. A. M. Muthiah Chettiar even though notional partition may have been envisaged under the Hindu Succession Act ?" It is not in dispute before us that a notional partition was indeed required to be effected on the demise of Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar and that the estate duty payable on that l/3rd was a charge on that l/3rd share. The fact that the properties had not been physidally divided does not therefore make any difference so far as the computation of the net wealth is concerned. The share which is allottable to the share of the deceased could not have been included in the net wealth of the Hindu undivided family, which continued nor could that Hindu undivided family be allowed any deduction in respect of the estate duty payable on the share of Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar. Under section 74 of the Estate Duty Act, the estate duty is a first charge on the estate. Under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act "net wealth" is defined to mean the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act of all the assets, wherever located and belonging to the assessee on the valuation date including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under the Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee other than, inter alia, debts which are secured on or which have been incurred in relation to any property in respect of which wealth-tax is not chargeable under this Act. It is clear beyond all doubt that what is to be deducted from the value of all the assets required to be included in the wealth of the assessee, would be the debts of the assessee and not that of others and the debts which are secured on properties in respect of which wealth-tax is not chargeable, is not to be deducted from the net wealth. The liability for the payment of estate duty on the l/3rd share of the late Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar was not the liability of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. It was the liability cast on the heirs of the deceased Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar. Even if that liability had been met by the assessee-Hindu undivided family it would still be the liability of the legal heirs of the deceased Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar and that amount would not qualify for deduction from the net wealth of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in the view that it took. The argument of counsel for the assessee that the issue is a debatable one is wholly untenable. There is no scope for debate on this issue. The answer is evident from a bare perusal of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum has held that in order to ascertain the share of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener of an Hindu undivided family it is necessary, in the very nature of things, and as the very first step, to ascertain the share of the deceased in the coparcenary property and that it is required to be assumed that a partition had, in fact, taken place between the deceased and his coparceners immediately before his death, which assumption once made was irrevocable. The questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.