Judgment :- NAINAR SUNDARAM J. These references are directed to be posted before the Full Bench in view of the conflicting views prevailing between pronouncements of Division Benches of this court. The question referred in Tax Case No. 579 of 1977, a case arising under the Income-tax Act, reads as follows "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the gifted properties arose to the Hindu undivided family and it cannot be, therefore, clubbed with the assessee's individual income ?" * The question referred in Tax Case No. 1450 of 1977, a case arising under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, runs as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 2, 61, 136 belonged to the Hindu undivided family and, therefore, not assessable in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity ?" * The assessee's father was one Meiyappa Chettiar. On June 5, 1966, the father issued a cheque for Rs. 10, 000 in favour of the assessee, who was one among his four sons, and gave him also cash of Rs. 100. Contemporaneously, the assessee's father gave a letter the terms of which ran as follows: "I am enclosing herewith my cheque for Rs. 10, 000 drawn in your favour and cash of Rs. 100. It is my intention that the benefit of these sums should go to your wife and children also as and when you get married and that you should all enjoy it as a Hindu joint family and these sums as well as the accretions thereto should be subject to the incidence of the joint family property under the Hindu law. I shall be glad to have your acceptance of this gift on the duplicate copy hereof." * The gift was accepted by the assessee. The assessee was a bachelor at the time of the gift. Subsequently, he married and during the relevant assessment year, namely, 1972-73, he had a wife and a daughter. The Revenue wanted and wants to treat the assessee as an individual under the Income-tax Act regarding the income from the sums gifted as well as under the Wealth-tax Act regarding the said sums and the accretions thereto. Subsequently, he married and during the relevant assessment year, namely, 1972-73, he had a wife and a daughter. The Revenue wanted and wants to treat the assessee as an individual under the Income-tax Act regarding the income from the sums gifted as well as under the Wealth-tax Act regarding the said sums and the accretions thereto. The assessee claimed them as belonging to the Hindu undivided family and wanted assessment to be made only on that basis. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal has ultimately accepted the stand of the assessee. The questions have come to be referred to this court at the behest of the RevenueHere, we are concerned with a person who had the benefit of a gift by his father out of his self-earnings. The terms of the gift are unambiguous. It directs that the benefit of the sums gifted should go to the donee's wife and children also as and when he gets married and they all should enjoy the same as a Hindu joint family and these sums as well as the accretions thereto should be subject to the incidence of the joint family property under the Hindu law. These are express provisions and no difficulty need be apparently experienced in the terms or expressions used in the letter of gift that the interest which the assessee took in the sums will bear the character of a property belonging to a Hindu joint family. Under the statutes concerned, the concept of a Hindu undivided family is different from the concept of a Hindu coparcenary in ordinary Hindu law. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body and it includes only those who have acquired by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property and these are the sons, grandsons and great grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being, that is to say, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent. Under the statutes concerned that the assessee could constitute a Hindu undivided family with his wife and daughter is not being disputed by the Revenue. Under the statutes concerned that the assessee could constitute a Hindu undivided family with his wife and daughter is not being disputed by the Revenue. In CIT v. M. Balasubramaniam 1981 (132) ITR 529 (Mad), for the assessment year 1971-72, the case of the very same assessee, now before us, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court and the tenor of the letter of gift was pressed forth by the assessee to say that the assessment should be on the basis that the sums belong to a Hindu undivided family. The Division Bench did not countenance this plea of the assessee, opining that where the property did not originally belong to the joint family and it is received by the assessee, the mere existence of a wife and daughter would not justify the assessment of income in the status of Hindu undivided family. In doing so, the Division Bench adverted to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT 1976 (2) SCR 164 , 1976 AIR(SC) 109, 1976 (3) SCC 142 , 1978 HLR 144, 1975 (101) ITR 776, 1976 CTR(SC) 140, 1976 TaxLR 108In contrast, we have the pronouncements of two Division Benches of this court which have gone by the primary rule of intention by the donor testator. In Satyendra Kumar v. CIT 1983 (140) ITR 840, 1981 (24) CTR 28, 1982 (8) TAXMAN 178 , 1981 (24) CTR(Mad) 28 (Mad), there was a gift of funds by the mother to her son and the intention was expressed that the funds should be used for the benefit of the entire family. The son, with the funds, acquired further properties and they were the subject-matter of a division at a later point of time through arbitrators. The assessee, a grandson, was allotted certain properties by the award of the arbitrators and he contended that the properties got by him under the award had to be treated as the properties of a Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta. The Division Bench went by the primary rule of intention and they held that the properties should be treated as those of Hindu undivided family. The Division Bench went by the primary rule of intention and they held that the properties should be treated as those of Hindu undivided family. In CIT v. Radhambal Ammal 1985 (153) ITR 440, 1987 (61) CTR 130, 1985 (20) TAXMAN 197 , 1987 (61) CTR(Mad) 130, another Division Bench of this court dealt with the case of a will executed by the assessee's adoptive father, bequeathing properties to the assessee stating that the assessee will take the properties and hold the same for himself and for the benefit of the son to be born. From this, the Division Bench opined that the intention of the testator was clear that he was not giving the properties absolutely to the assessee with full power of alienation and even without any reference to the presumption arising from a gift by a parent to his son, which makes the properties in the hands of the son ancestral, in the absence of any contrary intention expressed in the will by the testator, the testator in that case having made his intention clear by saying that the assessee will take the properties and share the same along with his son to be born, the assessee could be assessed only in his capacity as a Hindu undivided family and not as an individual even though there was no birth of a son as contemplated. That a donor or testator dealing with self-acquired property may, by evincing the appropriate intention, render the property gifted to assume the character of joint family property or, as the case may be, separate property in the hands of the donee vis-a-vis his male issue is now a settled proposition in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, 1953 AIR(SC) 495, 1953 SCJ 707, 1954 (1) SCR 243, 1954 All(LJ) 25. The primary rule deducible from the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court is one of intention and that could be applied even to a case of a. Hindu undivided family under the statutes concerned. The primary rule deducible from the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court is one of intention and that could be applied even to a case of a. Hindu undivided family under the statutes concerned. If there are express provisions to the effect in the deed of gift or will that the son would take the property for the benefit of the family, that is decisiveThe case in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT 1976 (2) SCR 164 , 1976 AIR(SC) 109, 1976 (3) SCC 142 , 1978 HLR 144, 1975 (101) ITR 776, 1976 CTR(SC) 140, 1976 TaxLR 108 (SC) is clearly distinguishable on facts. That was a case where the assessee had wife and an unmarried daughter and he made a declaration that he had thrown the immovable property, which was his self-acquisition, into the joint, family hotchpot in order to impress that property with the character of joint family property and he further declared that he would be holding the property as the karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife and his unmarried daughter. Dealing with the facts of that case and expressing the view that until the birth of a son the personal law of the assessee governed, it was held that the income was chargeable to income-tax in the hands of the assessee as his individual income and not that of the family. To the facts of the present case, the primary rule of intention of the donor should be applied, and if so done, in our view, the Tribunal did the right thing when it accepted the case of the assessee. In the light of our above discussion, we approve the view taken in Satyendra Kumar v. CIT 1983 (140) ITR 840, 1981 (24) CTR 28, 1982 (8) TAXMAN 178 , 1981 (24) CTR(Mad) 28 (Mad) and CIT v. Radhambal Ammal 1985 (153) ITR 440, 1987 (61) CTR 130, 1985 (20) TAXMAN 197 , 1987 (61) CTR(Mad) 130 (Mad) and we are not able to approve the view in the pronouncement in CIT v. M. Balasubramaniam 1981 (132) ITR 529 (Mad). The result is that the questions referred in both the tax cases are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We make no order as to costs.