Clubbing of income fails where settled lands remained joint family property, not the assessee's absolute property.

Section 9(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act applies only where an assessee transfers his own property, directly or indirectly and without consideration, to a wife or minor child so that the resulting income can be clubbed in his assessment. Where the lands had been obtained on partition and retained the character of joint family or coparcenary property, a settlement in favour of family members was not a transfer of the petitioner's absolute property and section 9(2) did not operate. The validity of the settlement deeds did not alter that position, and the daughter's minority did not justify inclusion once the statutory basis for clubbing was absent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the income from lands settled by the petitioner in favour of his wife and daughter could be clubbed with his income under section 9(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, and whether that provision applied when the lands were joint family property rather than the petitioner's absolute property.

Analysis: Section 9(2) applies only where the assessee transfers his own property directly or indirectly to his wife or minor child otherwise than for consideration, so as to attract inclusion of the resulting income in the assessee's assessment. The decisive question was therefore the character of the property settled. On the facts, the lands obtained by the petitioner on partition retained the character of joint family or coparcenary property in his hands. A transfer of such property in favour of members of the family is not a transfer of the petitioner's absolute property within the meaning of section 9(2). The finding that the settlement deeds were valid did not alter this position, because validity of the settlements did not by itself attract clubbing when the subject-matter was joint family property. The further objection regarding the daughter's minority could not sustain the inclusion once the statutory basis for clubbing was absent.

Conclusion: Section 9(2) did not apply, and the lands settled on the wife and daughter could not be included in the petitioner's holding or income.

---