These five identical appeals by assessee arising out of common order of AAC relating to asst., yrs. 1974-75 to 1978-79 are being disposed of by common order. In first two grounds, assessee has challenged conclusion of AAC that 1/3 rd share in assets of HUF was includible in net wealth of assessee HUF. These two grounds are common for all five assessment years under appeal. We consider it necessary to state in brief facts of case relating to above issue. This is case of HUF styled as M/s Col. Raja Jagatbir Singh & Sons of which Col. Raja Jagatbir Singh was Karta. HUF consisted of Karta himself and his wife Rani Hemlata and son Ranbir. There was another widow Smt. Balbir kaur who had separated on receipt of certain assets from family. HUF, therefore, consisted of three members as aforesaid. Karta of H U F died on 30th March, 1973. There was no actual partition of family assets during lifetime of Karta of HUF. There is no such suggestion that there was any such partition even after death of Karta. It was claimed before WTO that in view of proviso below s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 1/3 rd share of deceased Karta devolved on this legal heirs in intestate succession. It was, therefore, urged that only 2/3rd share in family assets was assessable in hands of assessee HUF for asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1978-79 under appeal as valuation dates for these years fell after date of death of Karta being 30th March, 1973. claim was negatived by WTO. AAC also endorsed decision of WTO. assessee aggrieved by orders of authorities below for all five years is in further appeal before Tribunal. ld., counsel for assessee, relying on judgment of Mysore High Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Nagarathamma (1970) 76 ITR 352 (Mys) has contended that notional partition in family had taken place actually before death of Karta. joint family notwithstanding death of Karta continued for purposes of income-tax/wealth-tax but share of joint family diminished to extent of share of member dying. For this proposition he also relied on judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of CWT vs. Kanti lal Mani Lal (1973) 90 ITR 289 (Guj). He also referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabhai khandappa Magdum & Ors. (1981) 129 ITR 440 (SC). ld., Departmental Representative, on other hand, has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh & Ors. (1985) 46 CTR (SC) 349 and contended that unless female member or male member claiming through her separates from family fold, share of deceased in HUF property will not diminish assets of HUF. He, therefore, supported orders of authorities below. We have very carefully considered rival submissions. It is not necessary for us to consider judgments of Mysore and Gujarat High Courts on face of two judgements of Supreme Court. We have already noted earlier that there was no claim for separation by female member of family after death of Karta. In both cases before Supreme Court, female members had moved Courts for separation and determination of their shares in HUF property after death of one of coparceners. In case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum referred to above, their Lordships of Supreme Court have held while considering s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act and proviso and Explanation there below that all consequences which flow from real partition have to be logically worked out which means that shares of heirs must be ascertained on basis that they had separated from one another and had received share in partition which had taken place during life time of deceased. In case of Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh & Ors. (1985) 46 CTR (SC) 349, their lordships of Supreme Court have held that Supreme Court's decision in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum has to be treated as authority for proposition that when female member who inherits interest in joint family property under s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act, files suit for partition expressing her willingness to go out of family, she would be entitled to get both interest she has inherited and shares which would have been notionally allotted to her as stated in Expln. I to s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act. But it cannot be authority for proposition that she ceases to be member of family on death of male member of family whose interest in family property devolves on her without her volition to separate herself from family. legal fiction could no doubt ordinarily be carried out to its logical end to carry out purposes for which it is enacted but it cannot be carried beyond that. substance of decision, therefore, is that lady cannot be said to have ceased to be member of family on death of male member of family whose interest in family property devolves on her without her volition to separate herself from family. Claim for separation from family fold by such female member is, therefore, necessary condition for excluding her share in HUF properties under s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Their Lordships of Supreme Court reversed judgment of High Court as there was nothing to show that members of family had separated after death of coparcener. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation in sustaining order of AAC in not excluding 1/3rd share of deceased in HUF properties in absence of any partition or claim for separation by female member as envisaged in s. 6 of Hindu Succession Act and proviso and Explanation there below. These two grounds for all five years are therefore, rejected. third ground, which is again common for all five assessment years, is that there was no justification for appellate authority in rejecting claim of appellant that residential house situated in village Amarheri was exempt under s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act. Before considering this ground it may be pointed out that no such claim was made before WTO. Even in earlier years there was no such claim. Before AAC no regular ground was taken for years under appeal. However, additional ground was taken before him. In view of fact that assessee did not make any such claim before WTO for assessment years under appeal or even in earlier years, he declined to admit additional ground. It is against above rejection by AAC that assessee has raised ground. ld., Departmental Representative at outset opposed consideration of this ground. According to him, ground was not maintainable in ratio of Supreme Court judgment in case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd 1978 CTR (SC) 1: (1978) 111 ITR (SC). According to him, Gurjargravures P. Ltd 1978 CTR (SC) 1: (1978) 111 ITR (SC). According to him, there was neither any claim before WTO nor facts for determination of claim were available on record. He, therefore, contended that ground has rightly not been admitted by AAC for all years. He further contended that ground is misconceived in as much as assessee has not challenged non-admission of ground but has contested same on merits. ld. counsel for assessee contended that it being legal issue could be raised at any stage of proceedings. In our opinion, ground deserves to be dismissed. In ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Gurjargravures P. Ltd (supra) AAC has rightly not admitted additional ground as it was neither raised before WTO nor there is material on record of WTO for adjudicating claim. Sec. 5(1)(iv) at relevant time provided that house should be used as storehouse or for livestock. Neither of these facts are available on record. Even otherwise ground is misconceived as canvassed by learned Departmental Representative. It is, therefore, rejected for all years under appeal. fourth common ground is that without prejudice to ground No. 3 value of residential house has wrongly been confirmed at Rs. 3 lakhs which is highly excessive and arbitrary. AAC has confirmed value at Rs. 3 lacs as in earlier years also value was fixed at Rs. 3 lacs. submission of learned counsel for assessee is that house was in dilapidated condition and was deteriorating from year to year. We do not find any merit in this ground as for earlier years also value has been fixed at Rs. 3 lacs. No other details of house are available so as to make departure from value fixed. This ground for all years is also rejected. fifth ground which is again common for all five years is that there was no justification for AAC in confirming value of agricultural lands in village Bir Bara Ban at Rs. 3,500 (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 3,600) per acre ignoring fact that assessee family enjoyed only right for two generations and one generation had already expired and right of enjoyment of present generation was decreasing year to year and, therefore, value may be decreasing substantially. For asst. yr. 1970-71, WTO had adopted value of these lands at Rs. 3,000 per acre. Taking into consideration increase in value of landed properties, WTO fixed value of these lands on valuation dates relevant to asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1978-79 under appeal at Rs. 3,500 per acre. This has been confirmed by AAC. submission by ld. counsel for assessee is that assessee HUF has right to enjoy property for limited period i.e. it was limited to two generations and one generation had already expired and right of enjoyment o f present generation was decreasing year after year. Therefore, value may be decreased as assessed for asst. yr. 1970-71. ld. departmental Representative, on other hand, contended that value of lands on valuation dates relevant to assessment years under appeal had substantially increased. assessee could sell his right of enjoyment and, therefore, value fixed by WTO and sustained by AAC at Rs. 3,500 per acre was after taking into consideration appreciation in value of landed property and limitation with referred to period of right to enjoyment of these lands. According to him, if these properties were freehold, their value would have been much more. It was because of limitation of period of right of enjoyment that value has been fixed at lower figure of Rs. 3,500 per acre. He, therefore, supported orders of authorities below. Taking into consideration rival submissions and particularly fact that right of assessee for enjoyment of these properties is decreasing year after year and also taking into consideration that there is appreciation in value of landed property, in our opinion it would be reasonable if value of this land is adopted at Rs. 3,250 per acre. Orders of AAC for all five years are modified to this extent. WTO shall recalculate value of these lands on above basis and modify assessments accordingly. In result, all appeals are partly allowed. *** COL. RAJA JAGATBIR SINGH & SONS v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER