Testamentary bequest to a named individual remains separate property, making the income taxable in that person's hands.

Property specifically bequeathed under a will to a named individual, without any indication that it was intended for a Hindu undivided family, retains the character of the legatee's separate property. The court applied the principle that testamentary succession in favour of an individual does not, by itself, create joint family property, and treated the earlier contrary view as no longer good law. The income from such property was therefore assessable in the individual's hands and not as income of the Hindu undivided family.

---

---

Issues: Whether property received by a son under his father's will constituted joint family property in his hands, and whether the income from such property was assessable as income of the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The property was bequeathed by will to specifically named persons, including the assessee, and not to any family unit or branch as a Hindu undivided family. The governing principle applied was that where property is acquired by succession or testamentary bequest in favour of an individual, and the will does not indicate an intention to vest it in the family unit, the property remains the separate property of the legatee. The earlier view that a son would necessarily take such property as joint family property was no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court ruling referred to in the judgment.

Conclusion: The property obtained under the will was the assessee's separate property, and the income therefrom was assessable as his individual income, not as income of a Hindu undivided family.

Ratio Decidendi: Property specifically bequeathed under a will to a named individual, without any express bequest to a Hindu undivided family, takes the character of the individual's separate property and its income is taxable in that individual's hands.

---