BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS reference, under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, has been made in circumstances hereinafter related. Govinda Chandra Das is the Karta of an HUF consisting of himself and several others. The family is governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. They used to be assessed, for the purpose of wealth-tax, as HUF, in respect of wealth consisting of house properties and bustee lands. For the asst. yr. 1961-62, they were so assessed, namely, assessed as HUF by the WTO. The assessee became aggrieved by the assessment and appealed before the AAC. It was contended before the AAC that inasmuch as the assessee family was governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law "there could be no HUF in respect of the house properties which formed the subject-matter of wealth-tax assessment". The AAC upheld the contention and held that, since the assessee was governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, the house properties could not vest in the HUF and could not, therefore, be assessed jointly in the status of HUF. He, therefore, directed that the value of house properties, which was included in the net wealth, should be deleted from the assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the Revenue appealed before the Tribunal. There was a difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member. The Accountant Member held that the order passed by the AAC was legal and correct and the Judicial Member held a contrary opinion. Thereupon the matter was placed before the President of the Tribunal under s. 5A(7) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, to decide the following question of law : "Whether, by virtue of the fact that the members of a HUF governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law are co-owners of the family property, having definite and ascertained shares therein, the house property and bustee lands, even though held jointly by such family, were not assessable to wealth-tax in the hands of the HUF ?" The President of the Tribunal, who heard the matter as the third member, agreed with the view expressed by the Judicial Member and allowed the Departmental appeal. Thereupon, the assessee obtained a reference of the following question of law to this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the house properties possessed jointly by the members of the HUF governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law were assessable to wealth-tax jointly in the status of an HUF ?" A question similar to that we have to decide in this reference came up for consideration before this Court in a writ application in Biswa Ranjan Sarvadhikary vs. ITO (1963) 47 ITR 927, where Sinha J. (as the Chief Justice then was) observed : ". . . . where property is owned by two or more persons governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, and where their shares are definite and ascertainable, then, although they are in joint possession, the tax will be assessed on the basis of the share of the income in the hands of the assessee, and not as of an HUF." The same view appears in the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Smt. Bani Rani Rudra (1966) 59 ITR 216. In that case the widow and son of a Hindu inherited properties of the deceased under the Dayabhaga system of law, r/w s. 3(1) of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, and s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and each of them became entitled to a definite one-half share in the property inherited. In the circumstances, G.K. Mitter J. held that the share of each of them in the income from the house property should be included in his or her individual total income for the purpose of income- tax under s. 9(1) r/w s. 9(3) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, though they may be members of an HUF. On an interpretation of s. 3 of the WT Act, we are of the opinion that different considerations should not apply. The inherited property may have been possessed jointly by the members of the HUF but they were individually entitled to a definite and ascertained share therein. Thus the property was not owned by the joint family but by the members thereof. In the view that we take, we answer the question referred to this Court in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.;