Patanjali Sastri, J.
1. The petitioner was second defendant in a suit which was decreed against him and his uncle first defendant. He has been refused relief under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 on the ground that he was not an agriculturist having been assessed to income-tax. In fact he became divided from his uncle as a result of a partition suit decreed on 30th March, 1936. In ignorance of this division the Income-tax Officer assessed the first defendant to income-tax as manager of a joint family for 1936-37. This assessment is valid with reference to Section 25-A (3) of the Income-tax Act and having regard to Section 14 (1) of that Act the assessment cannot be regarded as the assessment of the second defendant's share of the income.
2. Under Act IV of 1938, the family which has been assessed to income-tax notwithstanding its disruption, cannot be deemed to be a person after 30th March, 1936. The petitioner is himself a person who has not in fact been assessed to income-tax and whose income could not be deemed to have been assessed by this assessment having regard to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Income-tax Act. We are therefore constrained to hold that the petitioner is not disentitled to. the benefits of Act IV of 1938. We allow the revision petition with costs and direct that the decree be amended so as to make the petitioner liable for Rs. 2,500 with interest at 6 per cent. from 1st October, 1937, and costs Rs. 619-3-0 with interest thereon at 5 per cent. from 3rd April, 1935 to 22nd March, 1938 and thereafter at 6 per cent.