JUDGMENT

Bharucha, J.-These appeals arise from a judgment delivered by the High court at Patna (Ranchi Bench) on an income tax reference at the instance of the Revenue. The three questions the High Court was called upon to consider read thus:

"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, female heirs of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law dying intestate could form a joint Hindu Family by means of agreement?

(ii) Whether female heirs of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law dying intestate could impress upon their inherited property the character of joint family property?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, one-third of the properties inherited from her husband was assessable in the hands of the assessee in the status of individual?"

The High Court answered the first and second questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and the third question in the negative and against the Revenue.

2. The brief facts leading to the reference are these: One Har Govind Dutta, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, died intestate on 19th June, 1972, leaving behind his widow (the assessee-respondent) and two daughters, Priya Dutta and Keya Dutta. That the assessee and the two daughters inherited the self-acquired properties of the deceased in equal shares is not in dispute. The assessee and the two daughters entered into an agreement on 26th July, 1972. Thereby they claimed to form an Hindu undivided family and the assessee threw her share of the inherited property into the kitty of this Hindu undivided family. Accordingly, for the Assessment Years 1974-75 and 1975-76 the assessee did not disclose in her income tax returns any income from her share of the inherited property.

3. The Income Tax Officer rejected the assessee s contention that her share of the inherited property had been thrown into the kitty of an Hindu undivided family and he held that she was liable to income tax in respect of the income therefrom. Her appeal was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. She went up before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which reversed the view of the taxing authorities. From out of the judgment of the Tribunal the questions aforestated were referred to the High Court. The High Court, relying principally upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth-Tax v. Gauri Shankar Bhar1, came to the conclusion that there was no bar to the constitution of an Hindu undivided family in respect of properties inherited by the heirs, whether female or male, of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School dying intestate by throwing an ascertained share into the hotchpot by agreement.

4. The High Court was in error in its reading of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Bhar (supra). This Court held, in view of the concession that each one of the heirs of a deceased governed by the Dayabhaga School took a definite share in the property left by him, that it was not necessary to decide whether a Dayabhaga Hindu family could be considered a Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. It held that, on the facts of the case, the heirs had taken the property of the deceased in separate shares; therefore, in law, each of them was liable to pay wealth-tax as individuals. It could not be said that an individual who inherited some property from someone became a Hindu undivided family merely because he was a member of an Hindu undivided family. There is, therefore, nothing in the judgment in Gauri Shankar Bhar s case to support the view taken by the High Court.

5. In Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore2 this Court held that there might be a joint Hindu family consisting of a single male member and the widows of deceased coparceners. The plea that there had to be at