ORDER
V.P. Elhence, Judicial Member
1. The interesting question raised in these 4 appeals is whether the assessee, who has only a life interest in the residential property in question, could claim the deduction under Section 5(l)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. The undisputed facts relevant to this controversy are as follows. The house property No.29, Golf Links was owned by the assessee’s husband late Shri Prem Nath Khanna. The said Shri Khanna had no male issue but only a daughter Mrs. Nirmal Sarin married to Shri Harish Chandra Sarin. Shri Prem Nath Khanna left a will dated 23-6-1971 and the life interest in the house property in question bequeathed to his wife Smt. Kaushalya Rani-the assessee, was described in the following manner in paras 5 and 6 of the said will which are relevant for this purpose :
5. I hereby bequeath my property situated at 29, Gold Links, New Delhi-3 to my only daughter, Mrs. Nirmal Sarin wife of Shri Harish Chander Sarin, to the exclusion of everybody else, subject, however, to the condition that my wife “Smt. Kaushalaya Rani, shall have life interest in the said property and shall be entitled to live in the flat presently occupied by me or any other flat in the building which she so desires and also to enjoy the entire in>-come derived from the said property during her lifetime. She will exercise all the rights of ownership in the said property in respect of the income or the use thereof except the disposal.
6. If the exigencies do arise which require the disposal of the property’situated at 29, Golf Links, New Delhi, my daughter Mrs. Nirmal Sarin may dispose of the same even during the lifetime of my wife after obtaining her consent and making such provision as my wife may consider necessary in lieu of life interest enjoyed by her in the said property.
Before the Wealth-tax Officer, the assessee sought to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. K. Ramachandra Chettiar [1983] 141 ITR 771 for claiming exemption under Section 5(l)(iv). However, the WTO rejected the said claim by holfling that the expression “beiongmg_to_the assessee”jised.in Section5(l)(iv) denoted absolute title whereas possession of an interest is less than full ownership. The WTO also held that “moreover life interest is not immovable property”.
3. In appeal, the learned Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Ramachandra Chettiar (supra) upheld the assessee’s claim.
4. Before us, on behalf of the department, Shri R.S. Adlakha, the learned Departmental Representative sought to support the order of the WTO. On the other hand, on behalf of the assessee, the order of the learned AAC was supported on the basis of the decisions mentioned in that order as also on othex’ considerations.
5. We have considered the rival submissions on both the sides. Pirstlyvfche WTO was not right injiolding thatthe life interest is not immovablejproperty. Any interest & immovable property is itself an immovable property .The “content of the assessee’s life interest is clear from paras 5 & 6 of the will which have been quoted above. She was made entitled to live in the fiat, to enjoy the entire income derived therefrom during her lifetime and to exercise all the rights of ownership therein in respect of the income or the use thereof except the disposal. Para 6 of the will prohibited the disposal of the property by the daughter except with the consent of the assessee and after making such provision as the assessee may consider necessary in lieu of life interest enjoyed by her in the said property. The concept of life interest is very well known in the realm of Hindu Law which deals with Widow’s Estate, etc. Article 176 of Mulla’s Hindu Law (15th Edition) states that “a widow or other limited heir is not a tenant-for life, but is owner of the property inherited by her, subject to certain restrictions on alienation, and subject to its devolving upon the next heir of the last full owner upon her death. The whole estate is for the time vested in her, and she represents it competely. As stated in a Privy Council case, her right is of the nature of a right of property, her position is that of owner ; her powers in that character are, however limited ; but .. .so long she is alive no one has any vested interest in the succession”. The estate taken by a widow in property, inherited by her from lier husband may best be described by saying that she is the owner of the interest; that she cannot sell the corpus of the property. Subject to the above restrictions on alienation, she holds the property absolutely and she completely represents it. The limitations imposed upon her estate are not imposed upon her for the benefit of reversioners. In Aiyar’s Law Lexicon of British India, 1940 Edition, page 128, it has been stated that the property belonging to a person has two meanings :
(1). Ownership ; and .
(2) The absolute right of user.
The same view is reiterated in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edition; page 260. In the case of R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthiala v. CIT [197118$! ITE, 570.. (SO), it was held by the Supreme Court that the owner must be a person, who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but in his own right as in this case.. In the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board ofSitapur AIR 1965 SO 1923, the Supreme Court observed tihat though the expression “belonging to” no doubt was capable of denoting an absolute title, it was nevertheless not confined to connoting that sense and that full possession fo an interest less than that of full ownership could also be signified by that expression. In the present case, the controversy regarding registration, etc., does not concern us as the assessee got the life interest under a will. In the case of K. Ramachandra Chettiar (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court observed that a life interest is a fractional interest of the property falling short of the entire interest in it and that it is a well known species of property under many systems of law, ancient and modern. The High Court clearly held that life Interest in property is an asset and that it is an interest in the house itself and that the holder of a life interest is entitled to -exemption under Section 5(l)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. No decision contrary to this decision and countering the position stated by us: above, was cited on behalf of the department. What is more, in the income-tax assessments of the assessee, the income from the property in question has all along been treated and accepted by the department itself as “income from house property”. This implies the fact that the position that the life interest possessed by the assessee in the house property in question was treated as ownership, has all along been accepted by the department. Therefore, it could not take a contradictory stand so far as the wealth-tax assessments are concerned. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the claim of exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) was very rightly upheld by the learned Appellate Asstt. Commissioner. We accordingly upheld his order.
6. In the result, the appeals filed by the department fail and are dismissed.