HUF property claim fails where inherited property under Section 8 is treated as individual property absent proof of prior coparcenary.

Property inherited by a Hindu male under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is taken in his individual capacity and not as coparcenary or HUF property unless there is proof that it had already belonged to an existing Hindu Undivided Family. The pleadings here did not establish any prior HUF ownership, nor any coparcenary in respect of the suit property, and there was no basis to presume ancestral character merely because the property descended through the male line. On that footing, the claim that the property was HUF property was rejected, and the dismissal of the suit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether property inherited by a Hindu male under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 can be treated as HUF property in the hands of his sons so as to support a suit for partition, possession and allied reliefs.

Analysis: The pleadings did not establish that the suit property had ever belonged to an existing Hindu Undivided Family. The settled position is that property devolving on a Hindu by succession under Section 8 is taken in an individual capacity and not as karta of a coparcenary, and there is no presumption that family property is HUF property merely because it descended through the male line. In the absence of proof that the grandfather acquired the property as HUF property or that a coparcenary existed in respect of it, the claim of ancestral/HUF character could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The claim that the suit property was HUF property was rejected, and the dismissal of the suit was upheld.

---