Reference on Hindu undivided family partition date fails where the issue was not raised and the matter is factual.

A question cannot be referred if it was neither raised before nor decided by the Tribunal, even where it concerns the Explanation to section 171 on Hindu undivided family partition. The proposed issue on the date of disruption and partition therefore did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The determination of the actual date of partition depended on the facts found by the Tribunal and did not present an independent question of law. The reference request accordingly failed because the matter was confined to factual ascertainment, not a referable legal issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proposed question regarding the date of disruption and partition of the Hindu undivided family arose from the Tribunal's order in view of the Explanation to section 171; (ii) whether the determination of the date of partition was a question of law or a pure question of fact.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed question regarding the date of disruption and partition of the Hindu undivided family arose from the Tribunal's order in view of the Explanation to section 171.

Analysis: The material issue before the authorities was the date on which the family stood disrupted. The Explanation to section 171 was never specifically invoked before the Tribunal, and the contention that there was no physical partition on the stated date was not agitated or considered at that stage. A question not raised or examined in the order under reference cannot be treated as arising from that order.

Conclusion: The proposed question did not arise from the Tribunal's order.

Issue (ii): Whether the determination of the date of partition was a question of law or a pure question of fact.

Analysis: The controversy turned on which of two dates represented the actual disruption and partition of the family property. That enquiry depended on the facts found by the Tribunal and did not involve any independent legal issue warranting a reference.

Conclusion: The date of partition was a pure question of fact and no referable question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The request for reference failed because the proposed question was outside the Tribunal's decision and the date of partition involved only factual determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference cannot be made on a question that was neither raised nor decided by the Tribunal, and the determination of the actual date of partition is ordinarily a question of fact, not law.

---