The ownership of properties, exemption from taxation of income from religious or charitable purposes and agricultural income, and the determination of collection charges are matters of fact and not of law.

( 1 ) THE main question involved in this Reference is a simple one, but certain facts of history bound up with it tend it an appearance of difficulty and at the same time make it interesting.

( 2 ) THE assessee is the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and the Reference is concerned with his assessment for the four assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48. For each of those years the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad has been assessed on a certain amount as his income from property, on a second amount as his income from a certain Imambara and on a third amount as his income from forest produce. As regards his income from other sources, he has been allowed collection charges at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent. His contention is that he is not liable to be assessed on any income from property at all, because he is not the owner of the properties which have been taken into account, that the Imambara is held under a trust wholly for religious purposes and, therefore, the income derived from it is exempt from taxation, that the income from forest produce is agricultural income and that the rate at which collection charges have been allowed is unduly low. On the above contentions, four questions have been referred to this Court. I shall take them one by one.

( 3 ) THE first question reads as follows : "whether on the above facts and in the circumstances of this case the income of the properties styled as 'state Properties' is not liable to-be taxed under Section 9, Income-tax Act?". The question is based on a misconception. Although at the one time there were certain properties which were given the name of 'state Property', there are no such properties at the present moment. All properties which were once called State Property and other properties purchased with the sale proceeds of jewels from a certain stock of jewellery are now of the same class and their incidents are the same. If there be other properties purchased with the personal income of the Nawab Bahadur or with money provided by him from other sources, the same are not within the ambit of the question.

( 4 ) THE contention of the Nawab Bahadur is that his sole interest in the properties is limited to the receipt of income from them, but the ownership lies vested in the Government. The facts are as follows :

( 5 ) THE assessee is the premier nobleman of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and that status rests on the fact that it was from an ancestor, of his, who was the last independent or semi-independent Sovereign, that the British took over the administration of those territories. It appears to have been considered fitting that although deprived of the status of a ruling prince, that ancestor of the assessee and his descendants should be enabled to maintain themselves in appropriate state and dignity and, to that end, a personal income for the head of the family and allowances for members were provid- ed from the revenues of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The head of the family for the time being was called the Nawab Nazim and it would appear that although actual sovereignty was no longer enjoyed by tile holder of that title, some kind of fictional or titular sovereignty was still accorded to him. In course of time, instead of the stipend and allowances being provided out of the public revenues of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, certain properties came to be set apart, which were held by the Government and the income from which was applied to the payment of the stipend and allowances. There was also a large and valuable stock of Jewellery which consisted of the heirlooms and the family jewels and of which also possession, bad been taken over by the British Government. About 1773, when Sir Syed Mansur Ali was the Nawab Nazim, he incurred large debts and disputes arose between him and his creditors as to whether the properties which were being held by the Government belonged to the public domain or whether they were his personal property which could be proceeded against for his debts. To