Impartible estate and Hindu joint family status turn on proof of special custom, not mere primogeniture or former rulership.

An erstwhile ruler's ancestral estate is not treated as separate impartible property merely because succession to the gaddi followed primogeniture; a special custom governing the family estate itself must be proved. After merger, sovereignty ceased and the former ruler became subject to ordinary law, including Hindu personal law for family property. Earlier income-tax returns filed as an individual did not conclusively bar assertion of the correct legal status. In the absence of proof of exclusive primogeniture for the estate, the property remained subject to Hindu joint family rules, and the correct tax status was a Hindu undivided family.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was the holder of an impartible estate; (ii) whether, after merger, the assessee continued as an absolute ruler or became subject to ordinary personal law; (iii) whether prior returns filed in the status of an individual operated as res judicata by conduct against a later claim to Hindu undivided family status; (iv) whether the assessee's correct status for income-tax purposes was that of a Hindu undivided family.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was the holder of an impartible estate.

Analysis: An impartible estate is not established merely because succession to the gaddi follows primogeniture. The decisive question is whether a special custom exists showing that the family estate itself is governed by lineal primogeniture to the exclusion of the ordinary incidents of joint family property. On the record, no such overarching custom for the Jaipur royal family was proved in relation to the private estate as distinct from succession to the throne. The court distinguished sovereignty and succession to the gaddi from the nature of ownership of family properties.

Conclusion: The assessee was not proved to be the holder of an impartible estate in the relevant sense.

Issue (ii): Whether, after merger, the assessee continued as an absolute ruler or became subject to ordinary personal law.

Analysis: Once the princely state acceded and merged, sovereignty and the legal incidents attached to rulership ceased. The covenant preserved only specified rights and privileges, and did not preserve a general rule that all family properties remained under sovereign primogeniture. After merger, the erstwhile ruler became a citizen subject to the laws of the land, including the personal law applicable to Hindus. The constitutional framework and the covenant did not keep the estate outside ordinary law.

Conclusion: After merger, the assessee was not an absolute ruler immune from ordinary law and was governed by Hindu personal law in relation to family property.

Issue (iii): Whether prior returns filed in the status of an individual operated as res judicata by conduct against a later claim to Hindu undivided family status.

Analysis: The filing of returns in a particular status is relevant but not conclusive. An incorrect self-assessment or earlier description does not preclude the assessing authority or legal representatives from asserting the correct legal status when the true position emerges. The factual conduct of dealing with property as an individual did not displace the legal character of the property where the underlying law supported HUF treatment.

Conclusion: Prior returns filed as an individual did not bar the claim that the correct status was that of a Hindu undivided family.

Issue (iv): Whether the assessee's correct status for income-tax purposes was that of a Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: In the absence of proof of a special custom making the entire estate impartible and exclusively inheritable by primogeniture, the ordinary law applicable to Hindu joint family property governs. An ancestral estate, even if historically associated with a ruler, does not cease to be joint family property merely because the ruler once enjoyed sovereign powers or because succession to the gaddi followed primogeniture. Once sovereignty disappeared and no contrary custom was established for the family estate, the legal incidents of Hindu joint family property and succession applied.

Conclusion: The assessee's correct status was that of a Hindu undivided family.

Final Conclusion: The connected references and appeals were decided by holding that the family property was not shown to be an impartible estate governed by exclusive primogeniture, and the post-merger position was one of Hindu joint family ownership for tax purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: An ancestral estate of an erstwhile ruler is not treated as the ruler's separate property for tax purposes unless a special custom of exclusive primogeniture governing the estate itself is proved; in the absence of such proof, the ordinary law of Hindu joint family succession applies after the cessation of sovereignty.

---