Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 2003/71 (From the Judgment and Order dated 5 12 1969 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 40 of 1965) S.T. Desai	 P.L. Juneja and R.N. Sachthey	 for the appellant. G. Venkatarama Sastry	 K.R. Ramamani and J. Ramamurthi for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI	 J. This appeal by certificate is directed against a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court dated December 5	 1969 Alladi Kuppuswami vs Controller of Estate Duty	 Madras(1) by which the reference made to the High Court by the Central Board of Revenue was answered in favour of the accountable person and against the Revenue. The case involves an interesting and important question of law in respect of ambit and scope of sections 7(1) & (2) as also 39 of the (1) 7 707SCI/77 724 Estate Duty Act	 1953 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '. In order to decide the question of law arising in the ap peal	 it may be necessary to set out briefly the facts of the case. Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer died some time.before the passing of the 	 but during his life time he had settled certain properties absolutely on his wife Smt. Alladi Venkatakshmamma to be referred in short as 'Smt. Alladi ' and he had also declared certain other properties to from part of the joint family properties. Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer hereafter to be referred to as "Shri Alladi" was a member of the Hindu coparcenary consisting of himself	 his wife and three sons. In the instant case we are only concerned with the joint family properties left by Shri Alladi. Alladi died on January 5	 1956 a few months before the passing of the and the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty valued her estate at a total amount ot Rs. 7	25	527 including a sum of Rs. 2	02	271 being the value of her the share in the joint family properties. The dispute in the present case centres round the inclusion of the aforesaid sum of Rs 2	02	271/ . The Revenue assessed the estate duty on the footing that as Smt. Alladi was a member of the Hindu coparcenary her interest in the joint family proper ties passed on her death to the other three sons and the value of this interest being 1/4th the heirs would be liable to pay estate duty on the value of the 1/4th share assessed at Rs. 2	02	271/ . The accountable persons raised several contentions before the Revenue including the question as to whether or not the Act would apply to agricultural lands as also whether interest on certain fixed deposits in Govern ment securities would be assessable under the Act. It appears	 however	 that before the High Court the respondent pressed only the question relating to the inclusion of the value of 1/4th share of Smt. Alladi valued at Rs. 2	02	271/ . The respondent filed an appeal before the Board and contended that as Smt. Alladi died as a Hindu widow she possessed no coparcenary interest which could pass on her death: her interest merged without any benefit accruing or arising to the coparceners and hence section 7 sub section (1) had no application. The plea taken by the respondent did not find favour with the Central Board of Revenue which upheld the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. Thereupon the respondent moved the Board of Revenue to make a reference to the High Court of Madras for decision of the questions of law involved in the case. The Board ac cordingly referred the following questions to the High Court: "1. Whether	 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case	 one fourth share of the deceased in the joint family properties	 to which she was entitled under section 3 of the Hindu Women 's Rights to Property Act	 1937	 was correctly included in her estate as property deemed to pass on her death under section 7 of the ? 2. Whether the 	 in so far as it seeks to levy duty on agricultur al lands	 is ultra vires of the legislative powers of the Union Legislature ? 725 3. Whether	 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case	 the accrued inter est on fixed deposits and Government securi ties up to the date of death of the deceased was correctly included in her estate under section 34(2) of the ? Although three questions had been referred to the High Court by the Board at the hearing of the appeal the respondent gave up questions Nos. 2 and 3 and confined his arguments only to question No. 1 which falls for determination in this case. The High Court	 relying mainly on the decisions of the Privy Council in Attorney General of Ceylon vs Arunacha lam Chettiar;(1) and Gartside vs Inland Revenue ' Commission ers(2) came to the conclusion that the interest of Smt. Alladi was not a coparcenary interest which could have passed under section 7 (1) of the Act and as the said interest was incapable of valuation was not exigible to estate duty. Thereafter the appellant applied to the High Court for granting a certificate of fitness for leave. to appeal to this Court and the same having been granted the appeal has now been placed before us for hearing. The respondent reiterated his contentions before us and submitted that section 7(1) of the Act had no application to the facts of the present case	 and therefore	 the share of Smt. Alladi was not exigible to estate duty. The appellant	 however	 submitted that a Hindu widow had a coparcenary interest in the joint family properties which could be valued on the basis of the factors enumerated in section 39 of the Act	 the High Court was in error in holding that the interest of Smt. Alladi was not capable of any valuation. The appellant	 therefore	 submitted that the High Court had not correctly appreciated the legal nature and character of the interest of the Hindu widow conferred on her by virtue of the Hindu Women 's Rights to Property Act	 1937. In our opinion the answer to the problem would naturally lie in a correct interpretation of ss 7(1) & (2) of the Act as also on a true construction of section 3(2) of the Hindu Women 's Rights to Property Act	 1937 as amended by Act 11 of 1938. It is true that while this Court has had occasions to interpret the provisions of the Hindu Women 's Rights to Property Act	 1937 hereafter referred to as the Act of 1937 ' on several occasions	 yet the exact point which arises in this case has not yet been determined by this Court. In order to understand the implications Of the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. before us	 it may be necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the Act as also of the Act of 1937. Section 7 sub sections (1) & (2) of the Act run thus: "7. Interests ceasing on death	 (1) Subject to the provisions of this section	 property in which the deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to pass on the deceased 's death to the extent to which a benefit accrues I.T.R. (E.D.) 20 (2) (1968) A.C5.53 70 I.T.R. 663 (II. L.) 726 or arises by the cesser of such interest	 including	 in particular	 a coparcenary inter est in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara	 Marumakkat tayam or Aliyasantana law. (2) If a member of a Hindu coparcenary governed by the Mitakshara school of law dies	 then the provisions of sub section (1) shall apply with respect to the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property only : (a) if the deceased had completed his eighteenth year at the time of his death	 or (b) where he had not completed his eighteenth year at the time of his death	. if his father or other male as cendant in the male line was not a coparcener of the same family at the time of his death. " It would be seen that section 7(1) consist of two parts the first part refers to the interest of the deceased which ceases on his death and according to this part two condi tions are necessary before there is a passing of the inter est (1) that there must be a cesser of the interest by virtue of the death of the deceased; and (2) that as a result of such cesser a benefit accrues or arises. The second part of sub section (1) contains an inclusive category which brings within the fold of sub section (1) a coparcenary interest in the joint family property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara	 Marumakkattayarn or Aliyasantana law. In the instant case	 we are mainly concerned with the Mitakshara law. We might dispose of a short argument ad vanced by Mr. S.T. Desai in support of the appeal on this question. It was submitted that the words "governed by the Matakshara	 Marumakkattayam or Aliyasan ana law" clearly show that the coparcenary interest has been used in a wide sense and cannot be restricted to the strict coparcenary interest known to the Mitakshara law alone In the view which we take in this case	 however	 it is not at all neces sary to go into this point. The main question for determi nation is as to whether the interest acquired by a Hindu widow under the Act of 1937 can be said to be a coparcenary interest in the legal sense of the term. Once a Hindu widow is held to have a coparcenary interest	 then there would be no difficulty in treating her as a member of the Hindu coparcenary	 in which case her interest could be easily valued according to the relevant provision of section 39 of the Act which runs thus: "39. (1) The value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cesser of a coparcenary interest in any joint family property governed by the. Mitakshara school of a Hindu law which ceases on the death of a member thereof shall be the principal value of the share in the joint family property which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a partition immediately before his death. " In order to understand the content and charac ter of the interest which a Hindu widow gets by virtue of the statutory provisions con tained in 727 the Act of 1937 there can be no doubt that prior to the passing of the Act of 1937 a Hindu woman had no right or interest at all in a Hindu coparcenary. She was neither a copar cener nor a member of the coparcenary nor did she have any interest in it	 except the right to get maintenance. She also had no right to demand partition of the coparcenary property after the death of her husband. The Act of 1937 introduced broad and important changes by bettering the rights of a Hindu widow and conferring on her the same interest as pos sessed by her husband. Sub sections (2) and (3) of section 3 of the Act of 1937 run thus: "(2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property	 his widow shall	 subject to the provisions of sub section (3)	 have in the property the same interest as he himself had." "(3)Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Woman 's estate	 provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming parti tion as a male owner. The words "the same interest as he himself had" in sub section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1937 clearly indicate that the statute gave effect to the well settled doctrine of Hindu Shastric Law that the persons of the. husband after his death continues through his wife who is the surviving half of the husband and the husband continues to live through the widow so long as the widow is alive. It was this concept of the Hindu Law which was sought to be recognised and given effect to by the Act of 1937. In these circumstances	 therefore	 when ' the Legislature used the expression "the same interest as he himself had" it would include all the bundle of rights possessed by the husband which would de volve on the wife and if there were to be any limitations on those rights they were spelt out by subs. (3) itself	 name ly	 that while the Hindu widow would have the same right and interest as her husband	 her interest would only be the limited interest known as a Hindu Woman 's estate. Sub section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1937 further conferred on the widow the right to demand partition and on partition she was entitled to get the same share as her husband. Thus the position appears to be that a Hindu widow was introduced for the first time into the Hindu coparcenary having the same rights as her husband and became as it were a member of the Hindu coparcenary with two qualifications	 viz.	 (1) that she had only a limited interest; and (2)that she could not be a coparcener because having regard to the nature of her entry into the family after marriage with her husband there was no question of her getting interest in the Hindu copar cenary by birth which is one of the most important incidents of a Hindu coparcenary. All the other rights of a coparcener were duly conferred on her by the Act of 1937. Dwelling on the content and import of the nature of the interest of a Hindu widow this Court pointed out in Jaisri Sahu vs Rajdewan 728 Dubey & Others(1) that on the death of her husband the properties vested in the widow and she fully represented the estate. In this connection	 this Court made the following observations: "When a widow succeeds as heir to her hus band	 the ownership in the properties	 both legal and beneficial	 vests in her. She fully represents the estate	 the interest of the reversioners therein being only spes succession 'section The widow is entitled to the full beneficial enjoyment of the estate and is not accountable to any one. It is true that she cannot alienate the properties unless it be for necessity or for benefit to the estate	 but this restriction on her powers is not one imposed for the benefit of reversion ers but is an incident of the estate as known to Hindu law. " Similarly in a later case in Potti Lakshmi Perumallu vs Potti Krishnavenamma(2) this Court reiterated that a Hindu widow was the surviving half of her husband and so long as she was alive the husband continued to live in her. This 'Court observed as follows: "The decisions also recognise that though the widow does not	 by virtue of the interest given to her by the new law become a coparcener she being entitled to claim parti tion of the joint family property is in the same position in which her deceased husband would have been in the matter of exercise of that right. That is to say	 according to these decisions her interest is a fluctuating one and is liable to increase or decrease according as there are accretions to or dimi nutions of the property. In our opinion these decisions lay down the law correctly. " It may be pertinent to note that in the aforesaid case the Court was considering the nature of the interest which a widow derived by virtue of the statutory substitution con tained in s.3(2) of the Act of 1937. It was also pointed out that like other coparceners of a Hindu coparcenary the interest of a widow until separated by a partition continued a fluctuating one which was liable to increase case or decrease with the deaths or additions in the family. In Satrughan Isser vs Smt. Subujpari & Others(3) this Court pointed out that the interest conferred on a Hindu widow arose by statutory substitution and the Act of 1937 introduced changes which were go far alien to the structure of a Hindu coparcenary. In this connection the Court observed as follows: "The Act in inventing the widow of a member of a coparcenary with the interest which the member had at the time of his death has introduced changes which are alien to the (1) 	 564 565. (2) ; 	 33. (3) ; 729 structure of a coparcenary. The interest of a widow arises not by inheritance nor by survi vorship	 but by statutory substitution: A Hindu coparcenary under the Mitakshara school consists of males alone: it includes only those members who acquire by birth or adoption interest in the coparcenary property. The essence of coparcenary property is unity of ownership which is vested in the whole body of coparceners. While it remains joint	 no individual member can predicate of the undi vided property that he has a definite share therein. The interest of each coparcener is fluctuating	 capable of being enlarged by deaths	 and liable to be diminished by the birth of sons to coparceners: it is only on partition that the coparcener can claim that he has become entitled to a definite share. The two principal incidents of coparcenary property are: that the interest of coparceners devolves by survivorship and not by inheri tance; and that the mate issue of a coparcener acquires an interest in the coparcenary property by birth	 not as representing his father but in his own independent right ac quired by birth." As pointed out above the essence of coparce nary property is the unity of ownership which is vested in the whole body of coparceners and the two principal incidents of coparcenary property are that the interest of coparceners devolves by survivorship and not by inheri tance and that the male issue of a coparcener acquires an interest in the coparcenary property by birth and not as representing his father. Alter having described the incidents of a Hindu coparcenary	 the Court proceeded to observe as follows: "By the Act (Act of 1937) certain anti thetical concepts are sought to be reconciled. A widow of a coparcener is invested by the Act with the same interest which her husband had at the time of his death in the property of the coparcenary. She is thereby introduced into the coparcenary	 and between the surviv ing coparceners of her husband and the widow so introduced	 there arises community of interest and unity of possession. But the widow does not on that account become a copar cener: though invested with the same interest which her husband had in the property she does not acquire the right which her husband could have exercised over the interest of the other copareeners. Because of statutory substitu tion of her interest in the coparcenary property in place of her husband	 the right which the other coparceners had under the Hindu law of the Mitakshara school of taking that interest by the rule of survivorship remains suspended so long as that estate enures. * * * She has still power to make her interest definite by making a demand for partition	 as a male owner may. If the widow 730 after being introduced into family to which her husband belonged does not seek partition	 on the termination of her estate her interest will merge into the coparcenary property. " Again this Court did not approve of the as sumption made by some Courts that the fight vested in the widow was liable to revert to the coparcenary	 even where	 on demand for partition it became separated from the copar cenary property	 and in this connection this court observed as follows: "The assumption that though the right vested in the widow by the Act is a right of property which may on demand for partition become separated from the coparcenary property it is still liable to revert to the coparce nary on the determination of the widow 's estate	 does not give full effect to the statutory conferment upon the widow of the same right of claiming partition as a mate owner". Finally this Court approved of certain obser vations made by the Madras High Court in Parappagari Parappa alias Hammanthappa and Another vs Parappagari Nagamma and others(1) where Subba Rao J.as he then was	 made the following observations: "She could ask for partition and sepa rate possession of her husband 's share. In case she asked for partition	 her husband 's interest 'should be worked out having regard to the circumstances obtaining in the family on the date of partition. If she divided herself from the other members of the family during her lifetime	 on her demise the succession would be traced to her husband on the basis that the property was his separate property. If there was no severance	 it would devolve by survivorship to the other members of the joint Hindu family :" It is	 therefore	 manifest from the aforesaid deci sion that if the widow had not chosen to exercise her right of partition	 there is no severance of the Hindu coparcenary and on her death the interest of the widow merges in the coparcenary property or lapses to the other coparceners. As already indicated above	 this Court in Satrughan vs Smt. Sabujpari & others (supra) had taken the same view and had con firmed the Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Smt. Sabujpari and another vs Satrughan Isser and others(2)	 where the Patna High Court after considering the entire law on the subject	 observed thus: "After having considered the various authorities and the various aspects of the case	 my conclusions are that	 under the Provisions of the Act a widow of a deceased coparcener is placed in same position as the deceased coparcener was	 for the reason of the fiction that half the body of the deceased husband survived in the widow; that	 like her husband	 the widow also is entitled to effect severance of the joint status (2) A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 405	 410. 731 of the family by an unequivocal expression of intention separate;* * * that in case the widow does not exercise her right of partition and dies without expressing any intention to separate	 the interest of the husband	 which she enjoyed	 goes by survivor ship to the other members of the joint family. " We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations made by the Patna High Court to which one	 of us (Untwalia	 J.	 as he then was) was a party. The view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid case was later on approved by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Mst. Khatrani Kuer vs Smt. Tapeshwari Kuer(1). In State Bank of India vs Ghamandi Ram (dead) through Shri Gurbux Rai(2)	 this Court	 while dealing with the incidents of Hindu coparcenary	 observed as follows: "According to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law all the property of a Hindu joint family is held in collective ownership by all the coparceners in a quasi corporate capa city. * * * The incidents of coparcenership under the Mitakshara law are: first	 the lineal male descendants of a person up to the third generation	 acquire on birth ownership in the ancestral properties is common; secondly	 that no alienation of the property. any time work out their rights by asking for partition; thirdly	 that till partition each member has got ownership ex tending over the entire property	 conjointly with the rest; fourthly	 that as a result of such co ownership the possession and enjoyment of the properties is common; fifthly	 that no alienation of the property is possible unless it be for necessity	 without the concurrence of the Coparceners	 and sixthly	 that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death to the survivors. A coparcenary under the Mitakshara School is a creature of law and cannot arise by act of parties except in so far that on adoption the adopted son be comes a coparcener with his adoptive father as regards the ancestral properties of the lat ter." Thus analysing the ratio of a aforesaid case regarding the incidents of a Hindu coparcenary it would appear that a Hindu coparcenary has six essential characteristics	 namely	 (1) that the lineal male descendants up to the third genera tion acquire an independent right of ownership by birth and not as representing their ancestors; (2) that the members of the coparcenary have the right to work out their rights by demanding partition; (3) that until partition	 each member has got. ownership extending over the entire property con jointly with the. rest and so long as no partition takes place	 it is difficult for any copercener to predicate the share which he might receive; (4) that as a result of such co ownership the possession and enjoyment of the property iS common; (5) that there can be no alienation of the property without (1) A.I.R. 1964 Pat 261. [19691 3 S.C.R	 681	686. 732 the concurrence of the other coparceners unless it be for legal necessity; and (6) that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death and merges in the coparcenary property. Applying these tests to the interest of a Hindu widow who has been introduced into a coparcenary by virtue of the Act of 1937	 we find that	 excepting condition No. (1)	 all other conditions are fully satisfied in case of a Hindu widow succeeding to the interest of her husband in a Hindu coparcenary. In other words	 after her husband 's death the Hindu widow under the Act of 1937 has got the right to demand partition	 she cannot predicate the exact share which she might receive until partition is made	 her dominion extends to the entire property conjointly with the other members of the coparcenary	 her possession and enjoy ment is common	 the property cannot be alienated without concurrence of all the members of the family	 except for legal necessity	 and like other coparceners she has a fluctuating interest 'in the property which may be increased or decreased by deaths or additions in the family. It is manifest that she cannot fulfil the first condition	 because she enters the coparcenary long after she is born and after she is married to her husband and acquires his interest on his death. Thus	 short of the first condition	 she possess es all the necessary indicia of a coparcenary interest. The fact that before the Act of 1956	 she had the characteristic of a widow estate in her interest in the property does not detract any the less from this position. It must follow as a logical corollary that though a Hindu widow cannot be a coparcener	 she has coparcenary interest and she is also a member of a coparcenary by virtue of the rights conferred on her under the Act of 1937. There is yet another important aspect of the matter which has to be considered. At the time when the was passed in 1953	 the Legislature was fully aware of the statutory interest conferred on a widow by virtue of the Act of 1937 and the incidents thereof. In these circum stances it is not reasonable to infer that the Legislature could have intended that though a Hindu widow has got the Same interest as her husband in the Hindu coparcenary and has also the right to demand partition and her interest which is a fluctuating. one would lapse to the other copar ceners in case of her death without seeking partition in the same manner as that of other coparceners	 yet it should be exempt from estate duty. The sheet anchor of the argument of the respondent was the Privy Council decision in Arunachalam Chettiar 's case (supra). In the first place	 the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case	 the Hindu undivided family consisted of father	 son and some female members. According to the Privy Council	 the females were merely entitled to maintenance. The females there could not have any interest in the coparcenary nor could any such argument be advanced because there was no statute similar to the Act of 1937. Moreover	 in the Estate Duty Ordinance which was being construed by the Privy Council there was neither any provision like the inclusive part of sub section (1) and sub section (2) of section 7 nor any provision similar to section 39 of the Act. In these circumstances	 we do not see how the Privy Council decision in Arunachalam Chattiar 's case 733 (supra) can be called in aid to support the contention of the respondent. In the instant case	 once it is held	 as it must be	 that Smt. Alladi was a member of the Hindu coparce nary	 her interest was undoubtedly a coparcenary interest which lapsed on her death and merged into the coparcenary. It was also clearly capable of valuation	 unlike the posi tion in Arunachalam Chettiar 's case where the Privy Council was construing a provision similar to section 40 of the Act	 which	 in our opinion	 has no application in the present case	 it being covered by section 39 of the Act. A fortiori the same observations apply to the case of Gertside vs Inland Revenue Commissioners (supra). That case has no application here where we are concerned with the concept of a Hindu coparcenary which is totally alien to the estates contem plated under the English Acts. For these reasons	 there fore	 we are clearly of the opinion that the two cases relied upon by the High Court do not appear to be of any assistance in deciding the points at issue in the present appeal	 and the High Court was in error in basing its deci sion on the aforesaid cases ignoring the decisions of this Court as also the peculiar and special provisions of the Act. Finally	 it was vehemently contended by Mr. Sastri for the respondent that the right of a Hindu widow under the Act of 1937 was merely a statutory substitution of a new status by her introduction into the copercenary and she could not be treated either as a coparcener or a me	 tuber of the copercenary or to possess any kind of coparcenary interest. While we agree that the widow after the introduction in the coparcenary could not be held to have become a coparcener	 because one of the essential characteristics of a coparcen er	 namely	 acquisition of interest by birth	 is wholly wanting in her case	 yet when the Legislature which was fully aware of the status of a Hindu widow under the Shas tric Law chose to improve her status by conferring a new right on her under the Act of 1937	 and with this avowed object clothed her with all the rights and concomitants of a coparcener 's interest	 it is futile to contend that the widow could not be treated either as a member of the Hindu coparcenary or as having been conferred coparcenary interest in the property. Even though the widow is not a coparcener in the strictly legal sense of the term	 the interest which she has is the same interest as her husband and that is the coparcenary interest with the only limitation placed on her by section 3(3) of the Act of 1937	 namely	 that her interest would be the limited interest of a Hindu widow. The conclu sion is therefore inescapable that Smt. Alladi did possess a coparcenary interest which lapsed on her death and merged into the coparcenary and the case was clearly covered by the inclusive part of sub section (1) of section 7 and under section 39 the value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cesser of her coparcenary interest was to be determined by taking the principal value of the share in the joint family property which would have been allotted to her	 had there been a partition immediately before her death. The last plank of the argument of the respondent was that the being a fiscal statute should be construed strictly so as to give every benefit of doubt to the subject. There can be no quarrel with this proposition but when the phraseology of a particular section of the statute takes within its sweep the transaction which is 734 taxable	 it is not for the Court to strain and stress the language of the section so as to enable the tax payer to escape the tax. In the view that we take in this case	 it is manifest that the legislative intent reflected in the Act of 1937 and the Estate Duy Act	 1953	 must be given full effect. Summarising	 therefore	 the position that emerges is as follows: By virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1937 a Hindu widow undoubtedly possesses a coparcenary interest as con templated by section 7( 1 ) of the Act and she is also a member of a Hindu copercenary as envisaged by section 7(2) of the Act. On the death of Smt. Alladi	 therefore	 there was clearly a cesser of her interest and her interest merged in the coper cenary property and by reason of the inclusive part of sub section (1 ) of section 7	 it must be taken to have passed on her death and was hence exigible to estate duty. Since Smt Alladi was a member of the copercenary	 this interest of her 's which passed on her death was liable to be valued in accordance with the method provided by section 39 of the Act. The interpretation of section 40 of the Act is not free from difficulty	 but as the present case squarely falls within the ambit of section 7 (1 ) latter part and sub section (2) of section 7 of the Act which attracts section 39	 it is not at all necessary for us to enter into the complex domain of the scope and ambit of section 40 of the Act in this case. The result is that the appeal is allowed	 the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the question referred to the High Court is answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. S.R. Appeal allowed.

Shri Alladi was a member of the Hindu coparcenary con sisting of himself his wife (Smt. Alladi) and three sons. Shri Alladi who died before the came into force	 during his life time had settled certain proper ties absolutely on his wife and had also declared certain other properties to form part of the joint family proper ties. Alladi died on January 5	 1956	 a few months before the passing of the . The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty valued her estate at a total amount of Rs. 7	25	527/ including a sum of Rs. 2	02	271/ being the value of her 1/4th share in the joint family properties	 on the footing that as Smt. Alladi was a member of the Hindu coparcenary	 her interest in the joint family properties. passed on her death to the other three sons and the value Of this interest being 1/4th	 the heirs would be liable to pay estate duty on the value of the 1/4th	 share. The respondent filed an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue and contended that as Smt. Alladi died as a Hindu widow she possessed no coparcenary interest which could pass on her death; her interest merged without any benefit accruing or arising to the coparceners and hence section 7 subsection (1) had no application. This plea did not find favour with the Board. which upheld the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty as correct. The Board further held that the Hindu widow 'section estate created by section 3(2) of the Hindu Widows Rights to Property Act	 1937	 was an interest in property which ceased on the death of the widow attracting estate duty. Thereupon	 the respondent moved the Board to make reference to the High Court of Madras for decision of the questions of law involved in the case. The Board referred three questions to the High Court under section 64(1) of the Act	 but at the time of the hearing of the reference	 the respondent confined his arguments only to the following issue	 namely "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 1/4th share of the deceased in the joint family properties to which she was entitled under section 3 of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act	 1937	 was correctly included in her estate as property deemed to pass on her death under section 7 of the ." The High Court relying on the decisions of the Privy Council in Attorney General of Ceylon vs Arunachalam Chettiar and Gartside vs Inland Revenue Commissioners ; held that the interest of Smt. Alladi was not a coparcenary interest which could have passed under section 7(1) of the Act and as the said interest was incapable of valuation	 it was not exigible to estate duty and thus held against the Revenue and in favour of the accountable person. Allowing the appeal by certificate	 the Court	 HELD: (1) By virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1937 a Hindu widow undoubtedly possess a coparcenary interest as contemplated by section 7(1) of the Act and she is also a member of the Hindu coparcenary as envisaged by section 7(2) of the Act. [734 B] 722 (2) Prior to the passing of the Act of 1937 a Hindu Woman had no right interest at all in a Hindu coparcenary. The Act of 1937 bettered the rights a Hindu widow and conferred on her by section 3 the same interest as possessed her husband. [727 A] (3) The words "the same interest as he himself had" in sub section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1937 clearly indicate that the statute gave effect to the well settled doctrine of Hindu shastric law that the persons of the husband after his death continues through his wife who is a surviving half and the husband continues to live through the widow so long as the widow is alive. When the Legislature used the expres sion ' "the same interest as he himself had"	 it would in clude all the rights possessed by the husband which could devolve on the wife. Thus	 a Hindu widow was introduced for the first time into the Hindu coparcenary having the same rights as her husband and became as it were a member of the Hindu coparcenary with two qualifications	 namely	 (i) she had only a limited interest and (ii) that she could not be a coparcener because having regard to the nature of her entry into the family after marriage with her husband	 there was no question of her getting interest in the Hindu copar cenary by birth which is one of the most important incidents of a Hindu coparcenary. [727 D E] (4) The essence of coparcenary property is the unity of ownership which is vested in the whole body of coparceners and the two principal incidents of coparcenary are that the interest of coparceners devolve by survivorship and not by inheritance and that the male issue of a coparcenary ac quires an interest in the coparcenary property by birth and not as representing his father. [729 D E] (5) A Hindu coparcenary has six essential characteris tics	 namely	 (i) that the lineal male descendants upto the third generation acquire an independent right of ownership by birth and not as representing their ancestors; (ii) that the members of the coparcenary have the right to work out their rights by demanding partition; (iii) that until parti tion	 each member has got ownership extending over the entire property jointly with the rest and so long as no partition takes place it is difficult for any coparcener to predicate the share which he might receive; (iv) that as a result of such co ownership the possession and enjoyment of the property is common; (v) that there can be no alienation of the property without the concurrence of the other copar ceners unless it be for legal necessity and (vi) that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death and merges in the coparcenary property. Applying these tests to the interest of a Hindu widow who has been introduced into a coparcenary by virtue of the Act of 1937	 it will be seen	 that short of the first condition she possesses all the necessary indicia of a coparcenary interest. The fact that before the Act of 1956 she had the characteristic of a widow estate in her interest in the property does not detract any the less from this position. Therefore	 though a Hindu widow cannot be a coparcener she has conarcenary interest and is also a member of the coparcenary by virtue of the rights conferred on her under the Act of 1937. [731 F H	 732 A B D] State Bank of India vs Ghamandi Ram (dead) through Shri Gurbax Rai 686 applied. (6) If the widow has not chosen to exercise her right of partition	 there no severenee of the Hindu coparcenary and on her death the interest of the widow merges in the copar cenary property or lapses to the other coparceners. Parappagari Parappa alias Harmmanthappa and Anr. vs Parappagari Nagaman and Ors. ILR 1954 Madras 183; S.T. Sabujpari and Anr. vs Satrughan Isser and Ors. AIR 1958 Patna 405	 410 and Mst. Khatrant Kuer vs Smt. Tapeskwari Kuer AIR 1964 Pat 261	 approved. (7) It was not the intent of the legislature which was folly aware of the statutory interest conferred on a Hindu widow by virtue of the Act of 1937 and the incidents thereof that though a Hindu widow has got the same interest as her husband in the Hindu coparcenary and has also the right to demand 723 partition and her interest is a fluctuating one would lapse to the other coparceners in case of her death without seek ing partition in the same manner as that of other coparcen ers	 yet it should be exempt from estate duty. In the instant case	 Smt. Alladi was a member of the Hindu coparce nary	 her interest was undoubtedly a coparcenary interest which lapsed on her death and merged into the coparcenary. It was clearly capable of valuation	 it being covered by section 39 of the Act. The High Court was in error in basing its decision on the Arunachalam Chettiar 's case and also in Gartside 's case ignoring the decisions of this Court and also the peculiar and special provisions of the Act. A C] Attorney General of Ceylon vs Arunchalam Chettiar 34 ITR (E.D.) 20 and Gattside vs Inland Revenue Commissioners ; ITR 663 (H.L.) held inapplicable. (8) It is wrong to contend that the widow could not be treated either as a member of the Hindu coparcenary or as having been conferred coparcenary interest in the property. Even though the widow is not a coparcener in the strictly legal sense of the term	 the interest which she has is the same interest as her husband and that is the coparcenary interest with the only limitation placed on her by section 3(3) of the Act of 1937	 namely	 that her interest would be limited interest	 of a Hindu widow. In the instant case	 Smt. Alladi possessed a coparcenary interest which lapsed on her death and merged into the coparcenary and was clearly covered by the inclusive part of sub section (1) of section 7 and under section 39	 the value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cesser of the coparcenary interest was to be deter mined by taking the principal value of the share and the joint family property which would have been allotted to her had there been partition immediately before her death. The present case squarely falls within the ambit of section 7(1) latter part and sub section (2) of section 7 of the Act which at tracts section 39. By reason of the inclusive part of sub a. (1) of section 7 it must be taken to have passed on her death and was hence exigible to estate duty. [733 D G] (9) When the phraseology of a particular section of the statute takes within its sweep the transaction which is taxable	 it is not for the court to strain and stress the language of the section so as to enable the tax payer to escape the tax. The legislative intent reflected in the Act of 1937 and 	 must be given full effect to. [733 H	 734 A]