The State is the petitioner herein. One Karuppan Chettiar owned vast extent of land and the first respondent was his permanently kept concubine. Respondents 2 to 11 are the children of the first respondent herein through the said Karuppan Chettiar. Karuppan Chettiar had settled certain properties individually on his illegitimate children, respondents 2 to 11 by various settlement deeds long before the date of the commencement of Madras Act LVIII of 1961. The first respondent was called upon by the Authorised Officer by a notice under section 9 (1) of the Act to submit a return under section 8 (1). She declined to file the return stating that herself and her children, respondents 2 to 11 cannot be considered to be a ‘family’ (as defined in section 3 (14) of the Act). To a further notice by the Authorised Officer under section 9 (2) the respondents 1 to 11 again contended before the Authorised Officer that they being illegitimate children, will not come within the scope of section 3 (14) of the Act and that each of them should, therefore, be treated as separate units for the purpose of the Act. The Authorised Officer, however, held that though respondents 2 to 11 were the il