These are several appeals for several years by assessee involving same issues and, therefore, they are disposed of by common order. issues that have been raised by assessee are as under: 1. Whether property, which was belonging to HUF comprising of assessee's husband, assessee and mother of deceased continue to remain HUF property even after death of her husband in absence of any male members? 2. Whether adoption of son effected subsequent to death of husband takes effect from date of adoption or from time of death of husband of lady, in which case HUF status continues in respect of property? 3. Whether it was proper to hold that on death of husband ladies received property by succession and there by adoption does not have effect of divesting of property already vested in hands of female members? brief facts of case are that property consisting of lands in Dudu Garden at Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur was received several years back by late Shri Jaswant Singh and had character of impartibility. After his death Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, his son, took charge of property and there was no dispute to fact that it was ancestral property. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh died on 21-5-1966 at which time he did not have any son or any daughter but left behind his wife and mother. assessee adopted one Shri Kuldeepsingh on 2- 6-1966. claim of assessee was that adoption was effective from time when husband of lady was alive and, therefore, character of property continued to be that of HUF. This was, however, not accepted by authorities below, as according to provisions of section 4(6) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') read with section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when Hindu dies leaving his family property behind with no male members, then female members receive property by succession and not by survivorship. Therefore, they concluded on death of husband of assessee, assessee and her mother-in-law received properties owned by HUF in equal proportions in their individual capacities. 2. Before us, argument of counsel of assessee, Mr. N.C. Chadda, was that in accordance with Patna High Court decision in Savitri Devi v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 385, HUF exists and continue to exist as there was adoption of son by widow. He also relied on State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Deshmukh [1985] 46 CTR (SC) 349 for this proposition on applicability of section 6. Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Dhani Devi and Jhavermal v. CED [1973] 89 ITR 96, CIT v. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo [1986] 157 ITR 358 (Pat.), Mahrajadhiraj Himmat Singhji v. CWT [1984] 150 ITR 247 (Kar.) 3. On other hand, argument of learned departmental representative was that section 4(6) provides that property which has character of impartibility is to be treated as individual property for wealth-tax assessment purposes and, therefore, it flows out from this particular provision that property received by assessee and her mother-in-law on death of her husband is owned by them in their individual capacity and it would be wrong to say that there exists HUF in absence of any male member at time of death of only male member. 4. We have given very careful considerations to arguments of both parties. similar issue was under consideration before their Lordships of Patna High Court in case of Savitri Devi (supra). facts of that case are that there existed bigger HUF and one of coparceners died on 8-1-1953. O n that date, coparcener's son was living, who subsequently died on 2-2- 1955. There was partition of bigger HUF on 14-10-1955, karta of which was widow's father-in-law and during lifetime of husband of widow there was no partition of bigger HUF. Consequent to partition, widow received one-fourth share and on 3-10-1957 she adopted son. deed of adoption was registered on 11-8-1964. For two assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 assessee claimed status of HUF, which did not find favour up to Tribunal and on reference matter was considered by their Lordships of Patna High Court. observation of their Lordships in connection with existence of HUF is as under: "I would also like to add that even without adoption, on certain authorities of Supreme Court and this Court, joint Hindu family was in existence consisting of widow of Atmaram and her daughter. It is to be remembered that when Atmaram died his natural born son was surviving. Undoubtedly, joint family was in existence or Hindu undivided family was there, as widow could adopt child. In such situation on authorities of this Court in Pannalal Rastogi v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 592 (Pat.) and that of Supreme Court in N.V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 it can be safely held that Hindu undivided family was always in existence irrespective of death of natural born son of Atmaram or adoption being made later. I have ventured to express view of my own in case of existence of joint Hindu family on partition and drawn distinction between cases of continuance of Hindu undivided family on death of male member and coming into existence of new family on partition. This, I have done sitting with Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. in case of CWT v. Pannalal Rastogi (supra) (Tax Case No. 19 of 1969 decided on 22nd November, 1973). Yet I had followed earlier Bench decision of this Court, as I was bound to do, in case of Pannalal Rastogi (supra). Following aforesaid decisions, it has also to be held in this case that even without adoption Hindu undivided family was there and status of assessee in two assessment years was surely such on her adopting child which was not only adoption to her but also to her husband." (p. 388) From above, it could be seen that their Lordships' conclusion of continuance of HUF is mainly based on fact that at time of death of karta of smaller HUF there was bigger HUF of which deceased was coparcener and another male member existed. In that case, their Lordships had considered case of Supreme Court in N.V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190. In that case, issue was when family received certain properties on partition from bigger HUF and members of family being husband, wife and daughters whether they could constitute HUF in respect of assets so received or not. Their Lordships of Supreme Court held that property so received by smaller HUF in which there was only one male member is to be given status of HUF as there is no necessity of two male members existing to form HUF. Their Lordships of Patna High Court had also referred to case of CWT v. Pannalal Rastogi [1974] 96 ITR 110, which was similar to one before Supreme Court, i.e., case of N.V. Narendranath (supra). 5. Their Lordships of Patna High Court did not express any opinion on issue of whether adopted child could divest widow from property received by her prior to adoption. They only observed that: "It is clear that when she adopted child and she had unmarried daughter in existence, joint Hindu family came into existence, even assuming it was not existing from before." Their Lordships of Patna High Court also had referred to case of Supreme Court in Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra AIR 1970 SC 343. In that case, before their Lordships of Supreme Court as to nature of status of adopted child and his rights as compared to that of illegitimate child in family property (sic). fact in that case was that adoption was effected during lifetime of one of coparceners which was again guiding factor to come to conclusion that adopted child steps into shoes being born in family thereby receivable right in property (sic). Their Lordships of Supreme Court again were not considering situation where there was only one male member dying, leaving only female members. Their Lordships were considering again situation of their existing bigger HUF of which widow's husband was only coparcener. 5.1 salient distinctive features in present case from one referred to by assessee are that in case of assessee there existed no bigger HUF which was main criterion in other cases for coming to conclusion of continuance of HUF. other case referred to by assessee was Narayan Rao Sham Deshmukh's case (supra). In this case, their Lordships of Supreme Court were considering situation where HUF comprised of karta, male member and female members comprising of wife of karta, etc. karta died. issue was whether on death of male member shares of female members are defined though female members may acquire right which is indivisible and/or not reduceable and whether family continues or not. Their Lordships on these facts and in view of fact that ladies did not claim partition as they were not entitled to come to conclusion that family continues to exist. Again this particular case is distinguishable on facts of case before us and, therefore, cannot ipso facto be said to apply. 5.2 reference was also made to Rajasthan High Court decision in case of Smt. Dhani Devi and Jhavermal (supra) in which case identical issue was under consideration and is also distinguishable on reasoning that case was prior to enactment of Hindu Succession Act. Since their Lordships of Rajasthan High Court did not have occasion of considering Hindu Succession Act, in that case, said case cannot be said to be applicable to facts of case before us. 5.3 reference was also made to another Supreme Court decision in case of CIT v. RM. AR. AR. Veerappa Chettiar [1970] 76 ITR 467. In that case, t h e issue was whether receiving of share from HUF constituted capital or revenue and basis on which their Lordships came to conclusion that receipt had character of HUF was that originally property was that of HUF and recipient receives it again with character of HUF. This case again is distinguishable from facts of case before us and cannot be said to be applicable as such. 6. From cases of N.V. Narendra Nath (supra) and Smt. Sitabai (supra) it emerges out that HUF can exist even with single male member. From this, it could be inferred that when that only male member dies, leaving behind only females, then there cannot exist any HUF and females received property in status of individuals. This inference drawn by us is also supported b y Patna High Court decision in case of Savitri Devi (supra) whereby their Lordships have observed that joint family could come into existence possibly only from time of adoption of son. Therefore, from time between death of husband of assessee and adoption, there was no family in existence. At this point of time, it would be relevant to consider provisions of section 6: "When male Hindu dies after Commencement of this Act, having at t h e time of his death interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in property shall devolve by survivorship upon surviving members of coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that, if deceased had left him surviving female relative specified in Class I of Schedule or male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, interest of deceased in Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship. Explanation 1: For purposes of this section, interest of Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be share in property that would have been allotted to him if partition of property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. Explanation 2: Nothing contained in proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling person who has separated himself from coparcenary before death of deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy share in interest referred to therein." reading of section reproduced above is clearly indicative of fact that on death of Hindu leaving behind female members only, there is disruption of family and also coming to end of status of Hindu family, followed by female members receiving their respective shares on succession. Explanation 1 to this section has also provided clarification that share receivable by person in such situation would be same share as she would be entitled to if partition takes place though she may not be entitled to claim partition. clear reading of section 6 gives us only possible conclusion that on death of Shri Bhupendra Singh, husband of assessee, there was end of family of Shri Bhupendra Singh, 'Bhupendra Singh HUF' and start of individual status of assessee. Section 8 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, gives authority to female Hindu widow to adopt son or daughter. Section 11 of said Act provides for certain conditions for valid adoption, one of which is that person, who is adopting son, should not have Hindu son. Section 12 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act provides that adoption of child for all purposes shall be deemed to be effective from date of adoption. It further provides that adopted child shall not divest any person or any estate, which vested in him or her before adoption. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that since as per Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, adoption would be effective from 2-6-1966 only, which is after death of assessee's husband, he could not be adopted child could not be said to be part of family on 21-5-1966 when death occurred of husband. In that situation, adopted child cannot be said to be existing male member to constitute HUF and also continuity of HUF from 21-5-1966. 7. situation in present case is akin to person throwing his self- acquired property into family hotchpotch which was recognised as procedure of conversion of self-acquired property into that of HUF property. Section 64(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 and section 4(1A) of Wealth-tax Act have clearly provided that any person throwing his self-acquired property after 31-12-1969 into family hotchpotch shall be treated to be transferor's property and would continue to be assessed in his name. assessee is also trying to get benefit in view of words used in sections 11 and 12 where it is provided that from time child is adopted, he severes all connections with his original family and gets replaced by those created by adoption in adoptive family, with which there is no dispute but to say that this means that he should be deemed to have been part of family even prior to adoption thereby he continues HUF from time of death of adopted mother's husband is altogether different analogy, which is not acceptable. This is so in view of clear provisions contained in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (section 12). This provision has been included in section with clear intention and understanding that adopted child knows fully well that he has no claim on property, which already vests in his adopter and it is for adopter to give property if she so chooses so that widow is not deprived of her subsistence. This is precisely reason why we had to refer to provisions regarding person throwing his self-acquired property into family hotchpotch. Supreme Court in case of Pushpa Devi v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 730 was considering this very issue of female who was absolute owner and throwing her property into family hotchpotch in which she was member. In that case, their Lordships observed "that right to blend was limited to coparceners and female member of joint family could not blend her separate property, even if she were absolute owner thereof, with joint family property and that, therefore, income from share in firm was not assessable in hands of Hindu undivided family on basis that appellant had blended property with joint family property". Thus, it becomes absolutely clear that female member cannot convert her new property into joint family property in which she is member and this has been so provided in view of fact that female member though entitled to receive share on partition of family cannot claim partition and further is based on factum that it should not lead to divesting of property already vested on person. 8. Patna High Court decision in case of Savitri Devi (supra) was considered by Andhra Pradesh High Court and specifically dissented from it in their decision in case of CWT v. Smt. T. Yasodamma [1984] 146 ITR 445. I n that case widow had daughter and claimed that she, along with her daughter, constituted HUF on ground that she was entitled to adopt boy. Their Lordships of Andhra Pradesh High Court specifically held that though she is competent to adopt boy but such adoption does not result in divesting her of property which had already vested in her. We have already observed above that in case of Savitri Devi (supra) relied on by assessee they have not specifically answered question of divesting of property in hands of assessee while Andhra Pradesh High Court have specifically answered this question and further we have also observed that their Lordships had proceeded to accept claim of status of HUF on ground that at time widow's husband died there was son living. Therefore, considering entire facts as such and various authorities we find that our view finds considerable weight from ratio of Supreme Court in case of Pushpa Devi (supra) as well as Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. T. Yasodamma's case (supra) and we, accordingly, come to conclusion that assessment shall have to be made in assessee's hands treating her as individual and that she cannot be granted status of HUF. Though assessee did not raise issue of applicability of section 64 of Income-tax Act as well as section 4(1A) of Wealth-tax Act regarding throwing of self- acquired property into family hotchpotch, no different conclusion could be arrived at even when so-called adoption had been effected sometime in 1966 in view of ruling of Supreme Court in case of Pushpa Devi (supra) where categorical answer has been provided that female cannot blend her individual property with character of HUF property. We have, therefore, to answer all questions in negative, i.e., against assessee and in favour of department and, accordingly, dismiss all appeals. *** SMT. SAJJAN KUMARI v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER