THANIKKACHALAM, J.

These writ petitions are filed by different income-tax assessees praying for a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the provisions of section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1992, as illegal, beyond the scope of preventing avoidance of tax and inconsistent with the scheme of the Income-tax Act and violative of articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. Since the contentions raised by the petitioners and the relief sought in the above writ petitions are similar and common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order Writ Petition No. 16425 of 1992

The petitioner herein is an advocate. He is an income-tax assessee. His wife, Mrs. B. Vasanthakumari, and his minor daughter, V. Suchitra, are also assessees with regard to their independent source of income. In so far as the daughter of the petitioner is concerned, the source of her income is traceable to the property which she obtained by a will from her maternal grandfather while she was five months old. She receives rental income from such property, which she reinvests and gets income by way of interest. Since the minor daughter's income is not traceable to the fictitious income covered under the unamended section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The petitioner herein has challenged the provisions of section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1992, in so far as it seeks to club the income of her minor daughter with his income and taking away her right to continue as an independent assessee since the assessment years 1993-94. The petitioner's husband has already moved another writ petition, Writ Petition No. 16425 of 1992, for the very same relief. According to the petitioner, the statute seeks to club the income of the minor daughter with that of the parent whose income is higher. Since both the petitioner and her husband are assessees, they are unable to determine on the date of filing the writ petition, whose income is higher. It will be known only after the audit is over. Under such circumstances, both the parents of the minor child filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act

Writ Petition No. 18768 of 1992

The petitioner herein is an income-tax assessee. The petitioner's wife was also an assessee in respect of her income from the finance business in the name of Mohanlal Madanlal, a sole proprietary concern. The petitioner is having two children. The petitioner's wife died in a car accident. She was having about Rs. 6 lakhs of movables in cash and other movables at the time of her death. The petitioner and his two minor children succeeded to her properties equally under section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioner's minor children are receiving income from such property. The petitioner's minor children were independently assessed on the said income which they derived from their mother by succession. Since the income from the source of their succession was outside the scope of section 64 of the unamended Act, the petitioner's minor children were assessed independently till the assessment year 1992-93. However, section 64 of the Income-tax Act was amended by the Finance Act, 1992, to the effect that all the income of a minor will be clubbed with that of his parents save the exclusive income earned by the minor out of his own skill, profession or manual labour, even though there are innumerable lawful sources of income of a minor which are not traceable to the avoidance of tax on the part of their parents through the minor. The petitioner states that unlike other laws, Hindu law recognises, the right to property of a Hindu child even from the date he is in the womb of his mother. Further, the Hindu Succession Act recognises "minor child" as a person and the right of the minor to succeed to the property of his grandfather as a coparcener or to his father or mother