HUF ownership claim failed where returns showed the house as separate property and no family nucleus was proved.

A house standing in the son's name was treated as the deceased's individual property rather than HUF property because the deceased had separate income, another house had already been treated as HUF property, and the disputed house was consistently shown in income-tax returns as his personal asset. Those returns were strong evidence of his own classification of the property. The record also failed to show any sufficient HUF nucleus or surplus, supported by accounts or other material, for acquisition or construction of the house. The property was therefore includible in the estate, and the claim of HUF ownership was not proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the house known as Sita Ram Sadan at Boring Road was the individual property of the deceased so as to form part of his estate, or the joint property of the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The house stood in the name of the son, but the deceased had separate income as well as Hindu undivided family income. The deceased had another house which was treated as joint family property, while this house was consistently shown by him in his income-tax returns as his individual property. Those returns furnished strong evidence of his own classification of the property. The record also did not establish, with accounts or other material, that there was a sufficient surplus or nucleus from the Hindu undivided family funds for the acquisition or construction of the house. On the evidence, the contention that the property belonged to the Hindu undivided family was not proved.

Conclusion: The house was rightly treated as the individual property of the deceased and was includible in his estate; the answer was in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, affirming inclusion of the property in the estate duty assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows that a property was consistently treated by the deceased as his separate asset, and the claim of Hindu undivided family ownership is not supported by proof of a sufficient family nucleus, the property may be held to be the deceased's individual property for estate duty purposes.

---