RAJASHEKARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE Kartha of the Hindu Undivided Family (the HUF) one E. G. Gurappa consisting himself and his wife, died on 12-5-1980. There was a partition in the family between the father Gurappa and his son, on 25-4-1973. Subsequent to the said partition the late Gurappa and his wife Smt. Gangamma constituted a smaller HUF and this huf was assessed for the year 1974-75 onwards. ( 2 ) AFTER the death of E. G. Gurappa on 12-5-1980, the respondent issued notices to Smt. Gangamma, the widow of Sri E. G. Gurappa and e. G. Gurudev the son of late Gurappa treating them as legal heirs of the deceased. The two notices issued are produced as Annexures A and b and the respondent proposed to make an assessment on the agricultural income for the year 1979-80 in their hands. These two notices are challenged by the petitioners Smt. Gangamma and Gurudev in these writ petitions. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that after the death of E. G. Gurappa there was no 'family' and the income for the year 1979-80 cannot be brought to tax either in the hands of his widow or in the hands of his divided son. The argument is that there is no provision in the agricultural Income-tax Act to assess a sole surviving member of the family treating him/her as a family. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of seethammal v Commissioner of Income Tax, 130 ITR 597. ( 4 ) IN the said case the Madras High Court held that the assessment proceedings taken against the widow of the Kartha who was the sole surviving member of the family, was not possible under the Income-tax Act. The facts in the present case are similar to Seethammal's case. The Madras High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Krishna prasad v Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, 97 ITR 493. It was observed by the supreme Court that a single person male or female, cannot constitute a family and that plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant and upheld the order of the Karnataka High Court in c. Krishna Prasad's case. It was observed by the supreme Court that a single person male or female, cannot constitute a family and that plurality of persons is an essential attribute of a family. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant and upheld the order of the Karnataka High Court in c. Krishna Prasad's case. ( 5 ) SAME is the view taken by the Division bench of this Court in G. Thippaiah v Agricultural income Tax Officer, Chickmagalur, W. P. No. 22493/81 disposed of on 22-6-1988. The Division bench quashed the notice issued under the agricultural Income-tax Act on the son of the deceased Kartha who was the sole surviving member of the family cannot be upheld. The division Bench referred to Seelhammal's case which, in turn, applied the ratio of the decision in Krishna Prasad's case for quashing the notice. ( 6 ) FOR the same reasons the above notices issued in the present case also have to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Writ Petitions allowed. --- *** --- .