JUDGMENT - MRS. MANOHAR SUJATA, J.:---This Wealth Tax Reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 poses a common question for eight assessment years 1965-66 to 1972-73. The question is as follows : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 35,000/- for each of the six assessment years from 1965-66 to 1970-71 and the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for each of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, which the assessee was entitled to demand and receive from the trusts/trust to be paid to her out of the corpus of the trust funds was includible in her net wealth on the relevant valuation date?" 2. The assessee, who is the respondent, is an individual. She is a beneficiary under two trusts the first made by the assessee herself dated 23rd April 1949 and the second made by Shri Manmohandas Madhavadas Amersey and dated 24th December 1953. Under Clause 2 of the first deed of trust which is dated 23-4-1949 it was provided as follows : "... ... the Trustees shall pay to the Settlor on a written demand being made by the Settlor out of the corpus of the Trust Fund a sum not exceeding Rs. 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) in all either in one lump sum at one time or in different sums at different times and the receipt of the Settlor shall be a complete discharge to the trustees." Under Clause 3 of the second deed of trust, which is dated 24-12-1953 it was provided as follows : ".... .... the Trustees shall on a written request being made by the said Nirmala (the respondent) pay to the said Nirmala out of the corpus of the Trust Fund a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees Ten thousand) in all either in one sum at one time or in different sums at different times and the receipt of the said Nirmala shall be a complete discharge to the trustees." 3. Under these two trusts, therefore, the assessee has a right to claim from the corpus of the first trust fund a total sum of Rs. 25,000/-; and from the corpus of the second trust fund, she has a right to claim a total sum of Rs. 10,000/-. She also has a life interest in both these trusts. Under these two trusts, therefore, the assessee has a right to claim from the corpus of the first trust fund a total sum of Rs. 25,000/-; and from the corpus of the second trust fund, she has a right to claim a total sum of Rs. 10,000/-. She also has a life interest in both these trusts. During the assessment years 1965-66 to 1070-71 the assessee did not exercise this right of claiming Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- at all. On 3-2-1970 she exercised her right in respect of the second trust and received from the corpus of the second trust the full sum of Rs. 10,000/-. This amount was invested by her in M/s. Amersey and sons. It was included by her in her total wealth for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and was duly brought to tax. 4. The assessee, however, was subjected to wealth-tax in respect of her right to receive these sums of Rs. 25,000 plus Rs. 10,000 for all the eight assessment years 1965-66 to 1972-73 by the Wealth Tax Officer. He valued her right at Rs. 35,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held that the value of this right could not be included in the wealth tax assessments of the assessee for all the eight assessment years. He said that in any event, for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 Rs. 10,000 under the 2nd trust could not be so included as it was already received by the assessee and included in her net wealth. The Tribunal has also held that the right to receive these amounts under the two trust deeds is not an asset within the meaning of the term under the Wealth Tax Act. It therefore cannot be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal has held that this right to withdraw the amounts is analogous to a power of appointment. It does not become property for the purpose of wealth tax unless and until the power is exercised. 5. We are inclined to agree with this finding of the Tribunal. Under section 2(a) of the Wealth Tax Act 'assets' include property of every description movable or immovable. But a right to withdraw a certain amount from the corpus of a trust fund is merely a power to obtain certain property. It does not become property unless the power is exercised. Under section 2(a) of the Wealth Tax Act 'assets' include property of every description movable or immovable. But a right to withdraw a certain amount from the corpus of a trust fund is merely a power to obtain certain property. It does not become property unless the power is exercised. In the case of ex parte (GILCHRIST in Re. ARMSTRONG)1, reported in 27 Q.B.D. 521 the Court said (page 531) : "No two ideas can well be more distinct the one from the other than those of "property" and "power", ... ... A "power" is an individual personal capacity of the donee of the power to do something. That it may result in property becoming vested in him is immaterial; the general nature of the power does not make it property. The power of a person to appoint an estate to himself is, in my judgment no more his "property" than the power to writ a book or to sing a song. The exercise of any one of those three powers may result in property, but in no sense which the law recognises are they "property"." 6. In the case of (Seth Ramnath K. Daga v. Commissioner of Wealth tax, Bombay City-II)2, reported in 127 I.T.R. 371 our High Court was required to consider whether an option to renew a lease was property and therefore formed a part of the assets of the assessee within the meaning of the term under the Wealth Tax Act. The Court said that such a right merely to renew a lease is not an interest in property. It was an option which may never be exercised; and cannot until exercised constitute property. The same reasoning would apply to the present case also. 7. We may add that neither of the parties appearing before us was able to point out what was the decision in the references which had been sent to this Court in respect of other assessment years pertaining to the same assessee. Hence we have decided the matter on its own merit without any reference to any previous decisions in the assessee's case. 8. In the premises we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 9. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----