Inherited property under the Hindu Succession Act is separate property, not HUF property; alternative joint-family claim remanded.

Property inherited by a son from a father dying intestate under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 devolves under section 8 as the son's separate property, because section 4 read with section 8 excludes the pre-existing Hindu law rule of survivorship and birth-right. The inherited asset is therefore assessable in the son's individual capacity and not as HUF property. An alternative plea that the property had been impressed with joint family character through a declaration in wealth-tax proceedings was allowed to be examined on the existing record, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits without fresh factual inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property inherited by a son from his father dying intestate under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is assessable as the son's individual property or as HUF property; (ii) Whether the assessee's alternative claim that the inherited property was impressed with the character of joint family property by his declaration in wealth-tax proceedings should be examined on merits.

Issue (i): Whether property inherited by a son from his father dying intestate under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is assessable as the son's individual property or as HUF property.

Analysis: The inherited property devolved on the assessee as a class I heir under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The competing views of the High Courts were considered, and the reasoning favouring HUF character was rejected. The Court held that section 4 read with section 8 abrogates the pre-existing Hindu law rule of survivorship and birth-right in such property, so the son acquires it in his individual capacity and not as karta of the family.

Conclusion: The property was assessable as the individual property of the assessee, not as HUF property.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's alternative claim that the inherited property was impressed with the character of joint family property by his declaration in wealth-tax proceedings should be examined on merits.

Analysis: The alternative plea was entertained because the relevant facts were already on record and no fresh investigation was needed. Since the factual aspect had not been examined by the assessing authority, the matter was sent back for consideration on the materials already available and in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The alternative claim was remitted to the assessing authority for decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the substantive status issue, but the assessee obtained a remand on the alternative plea, so the matter was only partly allowed and remained pending to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Property inherited by a son under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 devolves as his separate property, because section 4 excludes the pre-existing Hindu law rule giving birth-right in such property.

---