assessee, Smt. Vasanthakumari, became partner in Alermel Technicals with 40 per cent share as per partnership deed dated 28-3-1980. Towards her capital, she agreed to transfer her immovable property at No. 853, Indiranagar II Stage, Bangalore, to firm which is to be taken as asset of firm. In wealth-tax assessment of assessee, she claimed exemption of her capital standing in credit of firm on ground that partnership i s one at will and property acquired has not exceeded for more than six years. WTO did not accept this submission. He included in net wealth value of her share in firm. On appeal, AAC upheld same. 2. learned counsel for assessee kly urged that firm has commenced on 28-3-1980. partnership being one at will can be terminated at any time. Hence, property acquired was not for more than six years as duration of partnership being one at will. Thus, assessee is entitled for exemption under section 2(e)(1)(v) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). learned departmental representative submitted that interest in partnership is n asset and value of assessee's share in firm is includible in her total income. He submitted that section 2(e)(1)(v) refers to short-lived assets and that has no application to interest in partnership. It is section 4(1)(b) of Act which applies. He placed reliance on few decisions. 3. We have considered rival submissions. Section 2(m) defines 'net wealth' which means any amount by which aggregate value of all assets belonging to assessee on valuation date which is in excess of aggregate value of all debts owed by assessee. Section 2(e) defines 'assets' which includes property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include those stated in sub-clause (1) therein. Sub-clause (1)(v), which is relevant for our purpose, reads as under: " any interest in property where interest is available to assessee for period not exceeding six years from date interest vests in assessee;" Under above provision, any interest in property which does not exceed s i x years is excluded from definition of 'assets'. said provision, i.e., section 2(e)(1)(v), has no application to interest in partnership. There is no doubt that interest in partnership is asset. It is section 4(1)(b) which applies in case of interest in partnership. Section 4(1)(b) reads as under: " (1) In computing net wealth of individual, there shall be included, as belonging to (that individual)--- (b) where assessee is partner in firm or member of association of persons (not being co-operative housing society), value of his interest in firm or association determined in prescribed manner. " Rule 2 of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, deals with valuation of interest of partner in partnership. It is clear from above provision that if assessee is partner in firm, value of his interest in firm is includible in his/her net wealth. value of it is determined as per rule 2. In view of above provision value of assessee's interest in partnership is clearly includible in her net wealth. We are unable to agree with contention that once partnership is one at will, interest in partnership property should be taken as available for period not exceeding six years. Hence, section 2(e)(1)(v) cannot be applied to assessee's case. That provision would be applicable only where it is established that assessee is entitled to enjoy beneficial interest for period not exceeding six years. Even if partnership is one at will, it is not possible to hold that interest of assessee in partnership does not exceed for six years. No material has been placed on record to prove that assessee's interest in partnership does not exceed six years. In this connection, we may refer to decision of Bombay High Court in Tamil Ramdas v. CWT [1981] 132 ITR 92. Bombay High Court considered provisions of item (v) of section 2(e)(1). It is observed as under: ".........The learned counsel, therefore, contended that it cannot be said with any certainty that after vesting date assessee would necessarily survive for period of more than six years, and, therefore, according to learned counsel, value of this contingent interest was to be excluded from net wealth of assessee. It is not possible for us to accept this contention. It appears to us that where interest of kind referred to in clause (v) in definition under section 2(e)(1) is sought to be excluded for purpose of computation of net wealth of assessee, such interest does not automatically cease to be property under general law. provision in clause (v) is special provision made for purposes of wealth-tax, and, therefore, when that provision refers to interest being available for period not exceeding six years, in our view, that clause will be applicable only where it is possible to be positively established on record on such material as is available, that assessee is not entitled to enjoy beneficial interest for period exceeding six years. On mere possibility of assessee not being alive beyond six years from vesting date provided in trust deeds, his case will not fall within clause (v) of section 2(e)(1). This contention must, therefore, be rejected. . ." It was held therein that said item will be applicable where it is established that assessee is not entitled to enjoy beneficial interest for period exceeding six years. above ratio squarely applies to instant case. 4. provisions of sections 4(1)(b), 2(m) and 2(e) have been considered by Supreme Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485. It was held therein that partner's interest in firm either in his individual capacity or as karta of HUF, is property or asset liable to be included in net wealth of assessee and is exigible to wealth-tax. After referring to section 4(1)(b) it was observed as under: " . . . It cannot be said that interest of partner in firm does not belong to him; it in fact, belongs to him and no legal fiction is required for treating it as belonging to him; and proper way to interpret clause (b) would be that deeming part of it relates to quantum of his interest in firm determined in prescribed manner which is to be treated as belonging to him and includible in his net wealth. It is impossible to accept contention that but for clause (b) of section 4(1) interest of partner (where he happens to be individual assessee) in firm would not have been exigible to wealth-tax under Act. As we shall presently point out partner's interest in firm either in his individual capacity or in his capacity as karta of HUF is otherwise exigible to wealth-tax under other provisions of Act and deeming provision contained in section 4(1)(b), properly understood, must be held to be referable to quantification of his interest in firm determined in prescribed manner that is made includible in his net wealth. Section 3 of Act read with definitions of 'net wealth' as given in section 2(m) and 'assets' given in section 2(e) clearly brings out exigibility of partner's interest in firm either in his individual capacity or in his capacity as karta of HUF to wealth-tax under Act. ." Again, it was observed as under: " On reading aforesaid provisions together, it will appear clear that wealth-tax has been levied on net wealth of individual or HUF, meaning thereby aggregate value of all assets belonging to such assessee minus all debts owed by him. Under definition of 'assets' property of every description, movable or immovable, is included, and since it cannot be disputed and was not disputed before us that partner's interest in firm either in his individual capacity or in his capacity as karta of HUF is property, same would be includible in expression 'assets' which will have to be taken into account while computing net wealth of such individual or HUF and on such net wealth charge of wealth-tax has been imposed under section 3. It is thus clear that there is not lacuna in Act as regards making of karta's interest (representing his HUF) in partnership firm exigible to wealth-tax. . ." Thus, it has been held by Supreme Court in above case that interest of partner in firm belongs to him and is includible in his net wealth. above decision is directly on point and squarely applies to instant case. 5. In Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300 Supreme Court held that no doubt since firm has no legal existence, partnership property will vest in all partners and in that sense every partner has interest in property of partnership. During subsistence of partnership, however, no partner can deal with any portion of property as his own. His right is to obtain such profits, if any, as fallen to his share from time to time and upon dissolution of firm to share in assets of firm which remain after satisfying liabilities. Thus, it is clear from above decision that partnership property will vest in all partners. 6. In Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 Supreme Court held that it is partners who own jointly or in common assets of partnership. When one talks of firm's property or firm's assets, all that is meant is property or assets in which all partners have joint or common interest. In CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza [1978] 114 ITR 532 (Kar.) assessee and four others owned estate in partnership. claim of assessee was that deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(1)(iva) of Act should be given i n partner's hands and not in hands of firm. This contention was accepted by Karnataka High Court. It was held that it is difficult to hold that assessee was not owner of agricultural lands so as to deny deduction under section 5(1)(iva). deduction contemplated is in computation of net wealth of assessee and not firm which is not assessee. above decision was rendered on footing that property of firm vests in all partners and so, deduction under section 5(1)(iva) is allowable in hands of partner. 7. principle that emerge from above decisions is that partnership property will vest in all partners and every partner has interest in property of partnership. interest of partner in firm belongs to him and it is exigible to wealth-tax. Section 2(e)(1)(v) will be applicable only where it is established that assessee is not entitled to enjoy beneficial interest for period exceeding six years. 8. Applying above principles, we hold that section 4(1)(b) would be applicable and interest of partner in firm is exigible to wealth-tax. provisions of section 2(e)(1)(v) will have no application to interest in partnership. Section 3 of Act and section 4(1)(b) read with definitions 'net wealth' as given in section 2(m) and 'assets' given in section 2(e) clearly brings out exigibility of partner's interest in firm to wealth-tax in his hands. Thus, lower authorities were justified in including value of assessee's share in partnership in her net wealth. We uphold order of AAC. 9. In result, appeals fail and are dismissed. *** SMT. VASANTHAKUMARI v. THIRD WEALTH TAX OFFICER