Joint family property retains coparcenary character; estate duty share must follow the actual coparcenary structure.

Agricultural land acquired from joint family funds retained its Hindu undivided family character even though it stood in one member's name. The applicable law on devolution of bhumidhari interest did not convert such property into the deceased's separate estate; it remained coparcenary property and belonged to the family members collectively. For estate duty and rate purposes, the deceased's share had to be computed by reference to the coparcenary structure. On the facts stated, the deceased was one of three male coparceners, so his share was one-third, while the widows had no coparcenary share.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agricultural land belonged to the deceased's Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta. (ii) Whether the amount includible in the estate duty assessment and for rate purposes was to be computed on the basis of a one-third share or a one-fourth share of the deceased.

Issue (i): Whether the agricultural land belonged to the deceased's Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta.

Analysis: The finding that the property had been acquired from joint family funds was treated as a finding of fact. Once the property was held to be joint family property, it belonged to the coparceners and not exclusively to the deceased. Under the applicable law governing devolution of bhumidhari interest, the joint family character of the property was not displaced merely because it stood in one member's name.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount includible in the estate duty assessment and for rate purposes was to be computed on the basis of a one-third share or a one-fourth share of the deceased.

Analysis: Since the property was joint family property and, on the facts found, the deceased was one of three male coparceners, each had a one-third share. The widows were not members of the coparcenary and had no share. Accordingly, the deceased's share had to be taken as one-third, and the aggregation for rate purposes had to follow the same basis under the estate duty scheme.

Conclusion: The earlier view was reversed, and a sum of Rs. 40,000 was includible as the deceased's individual estate and a sum of Rs. 80,000 was includible for rate purposes as the share of the lineal descendants.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by sustaining the joint family character of the property while correcting the valuation and aggregation basis for estate duty purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: Property acquired from joint family funds retains the character of joint family property, and where devolution is governed by the applicable land reforms law, the deceased's share must be computed according to the coparcenary structure and the statutory rules of succession.

---