The judgment establishes the principle that only coparceners in a joint Hindu family have the right to transform their separate property into joint family property, and such transformation has specific legal consequences. It also highlights the limitations on the rights of female members in such transactions.

( 1 ) THE question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this Court in the above case reads as follows;"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the assessee as a member of the hindu undivided family, was entitled to throw her separate property into the common hotch-pot of the Hindu undivided family ? "

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly these;-The assessee is governed by mithakshara Law. She jointly with her husband purchased a site in palace Orchard, Bangalore City, on 13th February, 1963. A house was constructed on the said site and both the assesses and her husband contributed towards the cost of construction. In the year of account, the house was let out and a sum of Rs. 7,365 was realised as rent. The assessee and her husband, in an affidavit dt. 27-2-1964, made a declaration that the property was treated and held by them with effect from 1st April, 1963 as the property belonging to the Hindu undivided family, of which they were members. The assessee is a medical practitioner in Bangalore. When she filed her return before the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 1964-65, she did not include in her return the income from the above property on the ground that it belonged to the Hindu undivided family. The income Tax Officer while holding that the property became the property of the Hindu undivided family with effect from 27-2-1964, was of the opinion that upto 27-2-1964 one half of the Income from the property was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Income Tax Officer, therefore, included the assessee's half share of income from the said property upto 27-2-1964 while computing her income for purposes of income tax.

( 3 ) THE assessee preferred an appeal against the order of assessment made by the Income Tax Officer before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 'b' Range, Bangalore, who held that there was no effective abandonment or transfer of the assesste's interest in the property during the year 1963-64 in favour of the Hindu undivided family and that she remained the legal owner of her share of the property throughout the year. He further held that her share of income of the whole year was liable to be assessed in her hands and the assessment was also enhanced by Rs 307 as a consequence of the above decision.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, bangalore Bench. The Income'tax Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that on 27-2-1964 the property had been impressed with the character of hindu undivided family property and that the income realised by or accrued to the assessee upto 27-2-1964 alone was liable to be assessed in her hands. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, sought a reference of the question of law set out above for the decision of this court.

( 5 ) IN order to answer the question, we find it necessary to set out Briefly the law governing Hindu undivided family governed by Mithakshara law. A joint and undivided family has been the normal condition of the hindu society. A male or a female can become a member of Hindu joint family by birth. An adopted son of a male member, and a girl marrying a male member of a joint family are also considered as members of the; joint family. Thus a person becomes a member of a joint family by birth, adoption or marriage. Nobody can be admitted into the joint family by contract, Simlarly, a person ceases to be a member of a joint family by death or. on partition. A boy who is given away in adoption or a girl who is given away in marriage also ceases to be a member of the joint family in which he or she is born. Hindu Law does not place any limitation on the number of persons who can constitute a joint family. It does not also exclude a person from being considered as a member of joint family merely on t