CHATTERJEE, J. :- At the instance of the Commissioners of Income-tax, the question of law which has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Tribunal is in these terms :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership firm of Dudwala and Co. should be registered under S. 26A of the income-tax Act."

2. The facts shortly are as follows. The partners of the firm were Rai Bahadur Rameshwar Nathany, representing the Mitakshara joint family under the name and style of Baldeodas Rameswar, one Mannalal Musuddi and one Ramkumar Agarwal. Mannalal Musuddi went out of the partnership in November 1942 and a fresh deed was executed by which the two partners carried on the business of the firm, in which the share of Rameswar Nathany [representing Baldeodas Rameswar] was twelve an nag and Ramkumar Agarwala three annas. The remaining one anna share was devoted to charity. The deed was dated 10th February 1946.

3. A suit for partition was instituted by one of the members of the Hindu undivided family. That suit was instituted on the original side of this Court and was marked No. 1436 of 1943. That litigation resulted