VELU PILLAI, J. : The petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwad and the petitioner in O. P. 684 of 1959 was the karnavan of a Namboodiri Illom, and they seek to quash the assessments of their families under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In doing so, they have challenged inter alia the constitutionality of the Act, as having been passed by Parliament without the requisite legislative power under Entry 86 of List I of the seventh schedule and in particular, the validity of the charging Section, S. 3, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The former contention was repelled and the latter was accepted, by the judgment delivered by a division bench of this Court on the 21st July, 1961. On appeals preferred against that judgment by the Revenue, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded these and the other petitions which were all heard together. Of the two contentions formulated above, the first relating to the constitutionality of the Act in relation to Entry 86 was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court in Banarasi Dass. v. Wealth Tax Officer, AIR 1965 SC 1387, and only the second remained open to the petitioners and was pressed before us, not to mention the point taken in O. P. 684 of 1959 against the merits or the propriety of the order of assessment.

2. As directed by the Supreme Court, an opportunity was given to the petitioners and to the department to file fresh affidavits. Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act which is impugned as discriminatory, is in these terms :

"Subject to this other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged for every financial year commencing on and from the first day of April, 1957, a tax (hereinafter referred to as wealth-tax) in respect of the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule."

The argument of the petitioners' counsel under Article 14 was, that whereas the terms "individual" and "Hindu undivided family" are units of assessment under S. 3, non-Hindu undivided families, such as Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwads in North Malabar and elsewhere and Christian joint families following the Hindu Law in Mysore and Coorg and elsewhere, are not such units, not being comprehended by the terms "individual" and "Hindu undivided family", with the result that with respect to them, Hindu undivided families have been discriminated against and alternatively, that if non-Hindu undivided families as aforesaid are looked upon as groups of individuals and therefore comprehended by the term "individual", these families have been discriminated against by reason of the schedule of the Act, Part I, Paragraph A, which has prescribed a lower limit of exemption for "individual" as against a higher limit for "Hindu undivided family" and that, if for that reason, non-Hindu undivided families are excluded as discriminated against, such exclusion in itself would spell discrimination against Hindu undivided families. Learned counsel for the Revenue answered, that the term "Hindu undivided family" includes not only Hindu Mitakshara and Dayabhaga joint families, but also all undivided families of Hindus, such as, Namboodiri Makkathayam families, Hindu "Marumakkathayam tarwads, such as Nair and Ezhava tarwads, that they are being assessed under the Act as "Hindu undivided family", that non-Hindu undivided families are comprehended by the term "individual" and are being assessed as such, and that in any event Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwads are so insignificant in number compared to the large number of Hindu undivided families in the Indian Union, that their exclusion either through inadvertence or otherwise is not discriminatory and would not attract Article 14. It was also suggested, that Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwads, and Hindu undivided families, including Hindu Marumakkathayam tarwads, are not similarly sit