Legislative meaning of "child" under agricultural income tax law limited to legitimate children, excluding clubbing for transfers to illegitimate offspring.

The Madras High Court construed the word "child" in section 9(2)(a)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, by reference to its ordinary legal meaning and the established interpretation of the analogous clause in section 16(3)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It held that, absent contrary statutory context, "child" means only a legitimate child. The Court declined to extend the term by relying on the declaratory rule in amended section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, because the agricultural income-tax provision was general in scope and did not justify a broader meaning. Children of a void bigamous marriage were therefore outside the provision, and the transfer could not be clubbed with the assessee's income.

---

---

Issues: Whether the word "child" in section 9(2)(a)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, includes an illegitimate child so as to permit clubbing of the income from assets transferred to such child with the assessee's income.

Analysis: The provision was read in the light of its language and the established construction placed on the analogous expression in section 16(3)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, where "child" had been understood to mean a legitimate child in the absence of contrary context. The Court declined to import the declaratory rule in the amended section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, because the agricultural income-tax provision applies generally and its wording did not justify extending the term beyond its ordinary legal sense. On that construction, children of a void bigamous marriage were outside the scope of section 9(2)(a)(iv).

Conclusion: The word "child" in section 9(2)(a)(iv) means only a legitimate child and does not include an illegitimate child; the transfer to Indrani could not be clubbed with the assessee's income.

---