JUDGMENT : M.S. Menon, J. This is a reference by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The question referred is: “Whether the term ‘members’ in the first proviso to Part I of the schedule of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, in its relation to a Hindu undivided family, refers only to coparceners of the family having right in the family property or whether it includes members other than coparceners who have no right in the family property.” 2. The proviso reads as follows: “Provided that no agricultural income-tax shall be payable on a total agricultural income which is less than three thousand rupees. The limit referred to in the above proviso shall be Rs. 6,000 in the case of every Hindu undivided family or an Aliyasantana family or branch or a Marumakkathayam tarwad including a Nambudiri family or a family like that of the Moothathu or any other class governed by the law applicable to Nambudiries, which satisfies as at the end of the previous year the condition that it consists of at least five members.” 3. The statement of the case deals with the controversy as follows:— “If the latter part of the proviso will apply to the case the appellant will not be liable to be assessed to agricultural income-tax since the total agricultural income of the family is less than Rs. 6,000/-. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer did not consider this question. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the proviso would apply only to an undivided family consisting of not less than five members having coparcenary right in the joint family property and that since all the five members in the appellant's family have no coparcenary right in the family property the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso. In appeal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner this Tribunal took a different view. This Tribunal held that the term ‘members’ in the proviso is not restricted to coparceners having right in the family property but includes also persons who have no right in the family property like wives of the coparceners and their unmarried daughters. In appeal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner this Tribunal took a different view. This Tribunal held that the term ‘members’ in the proviso is not restricted to coparceners having right in the family property but includes also persons who have no right in the family property like wives of the coparceners and their unmarried daughters. Since the appellant's family consists of five such members it was held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the proviso and was not liable to be assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year as the total agricultural income of the family was less than Rs. 6,000/-.” 4. A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family, and consists only of those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property, that is, the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being, or, in other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent (Mulla's Hindu Law, 12th Edition, Pages 313 and 314). 5. We see no reason to hold that the expression “Hindu undivided family” occurring in the proviso means anything other than what the words connote. The Tribunal was certainly right when it said that there was no warrant to interpret that expression as meaning only “a Hindu coparcenary”. 6. The expression “Hindu undivided family” occurring in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, came up for consideration in A.I.R. 1935 Bombay 412. Beaumont, C.J. said: “The nature of a Hindu undivided family was perfectly wellknown to the Legislature when the Income-tax Act was drafted, and it was well-known that the expression ‘Hindu undivided family’ includes females, and is much wider than the expression ‘coparcenary’ which includes only the males in whom the joint family property is vested. It is argued by the Advocate General that the Act, dealing as it does with property, when it refers to a Hindu undivided family, really means to denote the coparceners, that is to say, male members of the family in whom the family property is vested. It is argued by the Advocate General that the Act, dealing as it does with property, when it refers to a Hindu undivided family, really means to denote the coparceners, that is to say, male members of the family in whom the family property is vested. I see no ground for arriving at that conclusion, since the meaning of the two expressions was well-known when the Act was drafted, and the Legislature has thought fit to use the wider expression rather than the narrower one. I have no doubt that this was deliberate.” 7. The question referred is answered as above. The Department will pay the costs of the assessee which we fix, inclusive of advocate's fee at Rs. 150/-. 8. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as provided by sub-section (6) of section 60 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.