Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. The common question involved for consideration under reference in all these actions for the opinion of this Court is reflected as below : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the asset transferred by the assessee to his wife was includible in the net wealth of the assessee under s. 4(1)(a)(i) of the WT Act, 1957 ?" The assessments in question are relatable to the five assessment years, namely, 1970-71 to 1974-75. The assessee is an individual. He executed a settlement deed dt. 12th November, 1959, in and by which, he created a life interest in respect of certain agricultural lands in favour of his wife, Sivakami Ammal, and the vested remainder in the said land in favour of his brother-in-law's son, by name Velayutham. The settlement was acted upon, in the sense of the life estate-holder, namely, his wife, enjoying the income from the said agricultural lands. It appears that there was a difference of opinion between the assessee and his wife in or about the year 1969 and the difference of opinion so arisen continued for about three years. By way of purchase of peace and harmony, the spouses, namely, the assessee and his wife, decided to live apart and as a matter of fact, an agreement to live apart was entered into on 27th February, 1972, between them. As per the said agreement, the life interest given in favour of the wife by the earlier settlement deed dt. 12th November, 1959, in respect of certain agricultural lands was to be treated as consideration for her living apart from him. The assessee submitted returns under the WT Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957-for short "the WT Act"), for the relevant asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1974-75.The AO originally included the value of the life estate created by the assessee in respect of certain agricultural lands in favour of his wife, in his net wealth, in computing his wealth-tax for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1973-74. The AO, realising his mistake, rectified the assessment orders for those assessment years, in the sense of excluding the value of the life estate created by the assessee in favour of his wife in the net assets of the assessee in the computation of the wealth-tax payable by him. The AO took the same sort of a view for the asst. yr. The AO took the same sort of a view for the asst. yr. 1974-75. The CWT, Madras-34, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision, after complying with the requisite formalities, revised the orders of assessment for the five years in including the value of the life estate created by the assessee in favour of his wife in respect of the agricultural lands in the net wealth of the assessee for the purpose of computation of the wealth-tax. The aggrieved assessee took up the matter on appeal before the Tribunal, Madras Bench "B", Madras (for short "the Tribunal"), and the Tribunal, in turn, took the view that the value of life interest should not be added to the net wealth of the assessee, since it was held by the wife, in connection with the agreement to live apart and consequently cancelled the order of the CWT, by directing the inclusion of the value of the properties in the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal, in the alternative, also found that if at all anything is includible in the net wealth of the assessee, the value of the life interest alone could be includible and not the value of the asset, as such. On the facts, as above, the Tribunal referred the question, as set out above, for the opinion of this Court. Arguments of Mr. S. V. Subramaniam, learned senior standing counsel for income-tax cases, representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel for income-tax cases representing the Revenue, and Mr. P. Veeraraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, were heard.The issue arising for consideration on the question under reference is as to whether the value of the asset transferred by the assessee to his wife was includible in the net wealth of the assessee under s. 4(1)(a)(i) of the WT Act. The expression "value of the asset transferred by the assessee to his wife" must be properly understood, in the light of the factual matrix of the instant cases, before ever any attempt is made to answer the question posed for consideration. There is no denial of the fact that the assessee executed a deed of settlement dt. 12th November, 1959. A copy of the deed of settlement in Tamil as well as its translated version in English, had been placed before us for our consideration. There is no denial of the fact that the assessee executed a deed of settlement dt. 12th November, 1959. A copy of the deed of settlement in Tamil as well as its translated version in English, had been placed before us for our consideration. From a perusal of the said documents - both Tamil as well as in English - we are able to discern that the assessee had created a life interest in respect of certain agricultural lands in favour of his wife, Sivakami Ammal, and a vested remainder in favour of his brother-in-law's son, by name Velayutham. To put it otherwise, the assessee did not at all effect the transfer of title in respect of agricultural lands in favour of his wife and he had simply carved out a life interest in her favour in respect of those lands, leaving the vested remainder in favour of one Velayutham. The AO, it appears, had committed a mistake in adding the value of the agricultural lands, in respect of which a life interest alone is created in favour of the wife, while determining the net wealth of the assessee in the computation of his wealth-tax. Sec. 4 of the WT Act is captioned "net wealth to include certain assets". Sec. 4(1)(a)(i) and Expln. (a) thereto, which are relevant for our present purpose, read as under : "4. (1) In computing the net wealth : (a) of an individual, there shall be included, as belonging to that individual, the value of assets which on the valuation date are held :(i) by the spouse of such individual to whom such assets have been transferred by the individual, directly or indirectly, otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart : or ...... Explanation : For the purposes of this section, - (a) the expression 'transfer' includes any disposition, settlement, trust covenant, agreement or arrangement; (aa) the expression 'child' includes a step-child and an adopted child; (b) the expression "irrevocable transfer" includes a transfer of assets which, by the terms of the instrument effecting it, is not revocable for a period exceeding six years or during the lifetime of the transferee, and under which the transferor derives no direct or indirect benefit, but does not include a transfer of assets if such instrument, - (i) contains any provision for the re-transfer, directly or indirectly, of the whole or any part of the assets or income therefrom to the transferor, or (ii) in anyway gives the transferor a right to re-assume power, directly or indirectly, over the whole or any part of the assets or income therefrom; and (c) the expression 'property' includes any interest in any property movable or immovable, the proceeds of sale thereof and any money or investment for the time being representing the proceeds of sale thereof and where the property is converted into any other property by any method, such other property." A cursory glance or glimpse at the salutary provisions adumbrated under s. 4(1)(a)(i) of the WT Act would make it rather crystal clear that if transfer is made of any asset by the individual/assessee prior to the valuation date, directly or indirectly, either for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart, such transferred assets are not includible in the net asset of the assessee in the computation of the wealth-tax.Explanation (a) appended to the said section explains the meaning of "transfer" for the purpose of the said section. "Transfer" for the purpose of the section may, of course, include any disposition, settlement, trust, covenant, agreement or arrangement. "Assets" have also been defined under s. 2(e) of the WT Act, and the said definition is an inclusive and exclusive definition of property of either description - movable or immovable. "Transfer" for the purpose of the section may, of course, include any disposition, settlement, trust, covenant, agreement or arrangement. "Assets" have also been defined under s. 2(e) of the WT Act, and the said definition is an inclusive and exclusive definition of property of either description - movable or immovable. Suffice it for us to say, at this juncture, that the value of life interest created in respect of agricultural lands, as had been done in the instant case by the assessee, is not falling under the exclusive clause of the definition of "assets" and to say positively, the same is includible in the expression "assets" and a provision had also been made for valuation of the life interest created under Sch. III appended to the WT Act and r. 17 of the Rules framed thereunder. The moot question that arises for consideration here is as to whether the agreement entered into on 27th February, 1972, between the assessee and his wife, Sivakami Ammal, to live apart, will constitute "transfer" for adequate consideration. If the answer to such a question posed is in the affirmative, it goes without saying that the value of the life interest created by the assessee in respect of certain agricultural lands by his settlement deed dt. 12th November, 1959, will be excludible from the net wealth of the assessee for the computation of wealth-tax and if the answer turns out to be in the negative, such value of the life interest will fall within the "net wealth" of the assessee in the computation of the wealth-tax. We are of the view that the answer to such a question cannot be any, other than the one in the negative, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.The settlement deed dt. 12th November, 1959, contains relevant details of the agricultural lands, such as survey number, extent and the location, etc. In respect of those landed properties, as already adverted to, the assessee created a life interest in favour of his wife and the vested remainder in favour of one Velayutham, his brother-in-law's son. All the rights, the assessee had in those landed properties had been transferred, by way of life interest in favour of his wife and by way of vested remainder in favour of his brother-in-law's son, Velayutham. All the rights, the assessee had in those landed properties had been transferred, by way of life interest in favour of his wife and by way of vested remainder in favour of his brother-in-law's son, Velayutham. The settlement deed had already been acted upon and the income from the agricultural lands had been enjoyed by his wife till up to the agreement to live apart came into existence on 27th February, 1972. For the sake of emphasis, we may reiterate here that on 27th February, 1972, the date on which the agreement to live apart came into existence, there was no subsisting interest in favour of the assessee in respect of the agricultural lands dealt with by him in the settlement deed dt. 12th November, 1959. In the absence of any such subsisting interest in these lands, it is wellnigh not possible for him to transfer the properties or any interest in the properties covered by the settlement, directly or indirectly for adequate consideration in favour of his wife, so as to enable him to exclude the life interest created in respect of the properties covered by the settlement in favour of his wife from his net wealth in the computation of the wealth-tax. The transfer of life interest in respect of agricultural lands covered by the settlement deed had been created in favour of his wife and vested remainder in favour of his brother-in-law's son, Velayutham, long back in the year 1959 out of love and affection and the same had been accepted and acted upon, thereby nothing remains in those properties enabling the assessee to transfer directly or indirectly in favour of his wife in connection with an agreement to live apart.For the reasons as above we hold that the value of life interest created by the assessee in favour of his wife, Sivakami Ammal, by his settlement deed dt. 12th November, 1959, is includible in the net wealth of the assessee under s. 4(1)(a)(i) of the WT Act, and we answer the point accordingly. These tax cases (references) are thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order, as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.