( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 64 (1) of the Estate Duty act, 1953. The question referred to us is:

"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that a notional partition is to be assumed prior to the date of death of the deceased in consequence of which 1/4th of the coparcenary property passed on his death ?"

( 2 ) THE facts, briefly stated, are that late Justice Harish Chandra died on September 11, 1972, leaving behind his widow, Smt. S. Harish Chandra, who filed a statement of the family property claiming that the deceased had only one-fourth share in the property. The deceased had one brother, Bishan Chandra, who had died even before leaving behind Smt. Swarup Rani, his widow, and no issue. The deceased, late Justice Harish Chandra, had only one daughter who had been married before his death. According to the accountable person, the branch of the deceased had one-half share in the coparcenary property, and in that half share, the share of the deceased was only one-fourth and the remaining belonged to the accountable person, since she was entitled to a share in