Separate property and trust appropriation: clear intention is required for blending, and book entry can complete a charitable trust.

Separate property becomes joint family property only when the owner clearly and voluntarily abandons exclusive rights by throwing it into the common stock; equivocal conduct is insufficient, so the inherited sum retained its separate character and did not enter the deceased's estate. A charitable trust may be completed by a specific appropriation in the debtor's books pursuant to the owner's direction, even before a later formal deed; the Rs. 31,000 was therefore treated as dedicated on 2 November 1948 and not as property attractable to estate duty under section 22.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount of Rs. 1,33,277 standing to the credit of the deceased's wife, inherited by the son, had been blended with the joint family property so as to form part of the estate of the deceased; (ii) whether the sum of Rs. 31,000 set apart for the trust came into effect on 2 November 1948 or only on 5 April 1951, and whether it was liable to estate duty under section 22 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Issue (i): Whether the amount of Rs. 1,33,277 standing to the credit of the deceased's wife, inherited by the son, had been blended with the joint family property so as to form part of the estate of the deceased.

Analysis: Separate property can lose its character and become joint family property only if the owner clearly and voluntarily throws it into the common stock with the intention of abandoning separate rights. Such intention cannot be presumed from equivocal conduct. The continuance of the credit in the wife's name, the accounting treatment, and the son's attestation of the trust deed did not establish any clear act of blending. The materials showed only that the amount remained distinct and was treated as a separate debt, not that it was impressed with the character of joint family property.

Conclusion: The amount of Rs. 1,33,277 was not blended with the joint family property and did not form part of the deceased's estate. The finding was in favour of the accounting party.

Issue (ii): Whether the sum of Rs. 31,000 set apart for the trust came into effect on 2 November 1948 or only on 5 April 1951, and whether it was liable to estate duty under section 22 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

Analysis: The trust was not created merely by a formal deed. The wife had already directed that Rs. 31,000 be dedicated to a permanent charitable trust for a Sanskrit patashala, and the debtor subsequently made a specific book entry transferring that amount to the trust account. That appropriation completed the trust on 2 November 1948. Section 22 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 did not apply because the property was not one beneficially owned by the deceased as his own disposition within the meaning of that provision.

Conclusion: The trust came into effect on 2 November 1948 and was not liable to be aggregated with the deceased's estate under section 22 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The finding was in favour of the accounting party.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered for the accounting party on both questions, with the trust treated as complete from the earlier appropriation date and the inherited amount held not to have lost its separate character.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate property is not converted into joint family property without clear voluntary abandonment, and a specific appropriation in the debtor's books pursuant to an owner's mandate can complete a valid trust even without a later formal deed.

---