The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the sum received as maintenance in the context of an impartible estate and the undivided Hindu family.

Ramesam, J.

1. The facts of this case are not subject of dispute. The zemindari of Kurupam is an impartible estate in the Vizianagaram District being one of the zemindaris mentioned in the schedule to the Impartible Estates Act. The assessee is a brother of the last zemindar of Kurupam (being the second son of his predecessor) and uncle of the present zemindar who is a minor under the Court of Wards. By an award in 1920, he was given an annual maintenance of Rs. 6,000 by his elder brother; and this award was made the subject of a decree. The question now referred to us is:

Whether the sum of Rs. 6,000 received as maintenance by the petitioner as the brother of the late Rajah of Kurupam entitled under the law to receive maintenance out of the ancestral impartible estate of Kurupam is a sum received by him as a member of Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Clause (1) Section 14 of the Act.

2. The identical question has been the subject of a decision by a Bench of the Allahabad High Court See In the matter of the Income Tax Reference of Maharaj Kumar of V(sic)nagram, 140 I. C. 306--[Ed.] in connection with another zemindar in the same District, viz., Vizianagaram and as we substantially agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court it is not necessary to deal with the matter very elaborately. It will be enough to indicate the salient points. The nature of an impartible estate has been the subject of consideration in a series of decisions by the Privy Council. In Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh 60 Ind Cas 531 : 43 A 228 : 9 A L J 7 : 33 C L J 388 : 40 M L J 37 : (1921) M W N 30 : 25 C W N 564 : 2 P I T 357 : 23 Bom. L R 604 : 3 U P L R P O 35 : 29 M L T 358 : 48 I A 195 (P C) Lord Dunedin considers these decisions and groups them in chronological order. The 1st group extending from 1865 to 1885 need not be referred to now. In that year the decision in Sartaj Kuar v. Devraj Kuar 10 A 272 : 15 I A 51 : 5 Sar. 139 : 12 Ind. Jur. 213 (P. C.) was passed by the Judicial Committee and it was held that an impartible zemindari is alienable at the pleasure of the holder of the zemindari. This was followed and applied in the case of a zemindari from the Presidency, viz., Sri Raja Rao Venkataswamy Mahipathi Ramakrishna Rao Bahadur v. The Court of Wards 22 M 383 : 26 I A 83 : 1 Bom. L R 277 : 3 C W N 415 : 7 Sar. 48 : 9 M L J 1 Sup. (P. C.) where it was held that, the holder of an impartible estate can devise the whole of the estate or a portion of it be will. In spite of these decisions there are other decisions passed alongside of these holding that the impartible estate still continues joint family property. It is enough to refer to one of such decisions, viz., Sri Rajah Lakshmi Devi Garu v. Sri Raja Surya Narayana Bahadur Garu 20 M 256. There Lord Davey observed:

Even if impartible it may still be part of the common family property and descendable as such.... The real question, therefore is whether it has ceased to be part of the joint family property of the family of the first zemindar.

3. These observations of Lord Davey were relied on with approval by Lord Dunedin in Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh 60 Ind Cas 531 : 43 A 228 : 9 A L J 37 : 33 C L J 388 : 40 M L J 3(sic)7 : (1921) M W N 3(sic)0 : 25 C W N 564 : 2 P I T 357 : 23 Bom. L R 604 : 3 U P L R P O 35 : 29 M L T 358 : 48 I A 195 (P C). The next decision to which we may refer is another decision of Lord Dunedin in Rama Rao v. Rajah of Pittapur 47 Ind. Cas. 354 : 41 M 778 : 35 M L J 392 : 24 M L T 276 : 16 A L J 833 : 28 C L J 428 : 5 P L W 267 : 20 Bom. L R 1056 : 23 C W N 173 : (1918) M W N 922 : 45 I A 148 (P C), known as Second Pittapur case. At p. 784 Page of 41 M.--[Ed.] we have got the following observations:

It follows that the right to maintenance, so far as founded on or inseparable from the right of co-parcenery, begins where co-parcenery begins and ceases where co-parcenery ceases.

4. The learned Advocate