G.K.MISRA, J. - (1.)THE undisputed facts may be stated in short. The assessee, Ladukishore Das, before the relevant assessment years 1959 -60 to 1964 -65 partitioned his properties amongst himself, his wife and four sonsof whom three were minors and one was a major reading in a college at Cuttack. The partition by metes and bounds was effected by a registered partition deed on 22nd of August, 1958. Even after the partition all of them continued in joint mess and the assessee was looking after the cultivation of the entire property. The assessee gave a return in respect of the income arising out of the parcels of land falling to his own share in the partition by metes and bounds. The assessing authorities and the Tribunal held that the assessee, his wife and sons constituted an association of individuals. The income from the entire agricultural land was assessed in the hands of the assessee as the income of an association of individuals. The assessee asked for a reference to the High Court under Section 29(2) of the Orissa Agricultural Income -tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act '), of the following questions :
'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment as an association of individuals is correct ? (ii) Whether the petitioner should be assessed as an individual in respect of income -tax out of his share of the property ? '

(2.)THE reference having been rejected by the Tribunal, the High Court called for a statement of the case on those two questions under Section 29(3) of the Act.
Appropriately those two questions were directed to be reframed for verbal changes and we reframe them in this judgment as follows :

' (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment of the income of the entire property in the hands of the assessee as the income of an association of individuals is correct.? (ii) Whether the petitioner should be assessed as an individual in respect of the income arising only out of his share of the property ?' - - - -

(3.)THE finding of the taxing authorities that after the partition by metes and bounds by the registered document the various sharers constituted an association of individuals is obviously on the acceptance of the theory that the partition is real and is not a sham transaction. In Ramnath Panda v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income -tax, [1972] 84 I.T.R. 206, 210 (Orissa) the legal position was critically examined. In paragraph 7 thereof a Bench of this court made the following observation :
' Even after effecting partition the erstwhile members of the joint family who have ceased to be coparceners may agree to live together for economy and convenience. Joint messing has got its own blessings, particularly when the family consists of the parents and the minor sons. When a minor exercises his juristic right to be separated through the volition of the guardian and yet decides to remain together for economy and convenience, the arrangement cannot be said to be sham merely because thetaxing authorities under any taxing statute cannot reach the income or wealth of all the members taken together.'