High Court review in estate duty references cannot reopen Tribunal facts absent a specific perversity challenge.

In a reference under the Estate Duty Act, the High Court could not reappreciate evidence and disturb the Tribunal's finding that the gift settlements were genuine, possession had passed to the transferees, and the deceased retained no benefit or enjoyment. The Tribunal was the final fact-finding authority, and interference with its factual conclusion was permissible only if the referred question specifically raised perversity, meaning a conclusion no reasonable person could reach on the material. As no such perversity question was proposed, the High Court's factual reassessment was impermissible and the reference had to be answered in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a reference under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, the High Court could reappreciate evidence and disturb the Tribunal's finding on possession and enjoyment of the gifted property in the absence of any question suggesting perversity.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found, on the evidence, that the settlements were genuine, possession had been taken by the transferees, and the deceased had no retained benefit or enjoyment in the properties. The High Court did not confine itself to a legal question arising from a perversity challenge; instead, it reassessed the evidence and reached a contrary factual conclusion. Since the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, the High Court could not enter the realm of fact unless the reference question itself raised perversity, meaning that no reasonable person could have reached the Tribunal's conclusion on the material before it. No such question had been proposed.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the Tribunal's factual finding was impermissible, and the answer to the reference question had to be in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or upset the Tribunal's finding of fact unless the question referred specifically raises perversity in the Tribunal's conclusion.

---