Severance in status requires clear proof of total joint family disruption; partial partition did not defeat estate duty aggregation.

An account entry dated 31 March 1963 was treated as evidencing only a division of the family's business investment in a partnership firm and a partial partition of some movable assets, not a clear and unequivocal intention to disrupt the Hindu joint family as a whole. Severance in status depends on whether the document relied on shows an intention to separate from the joint family entirely; on the facts, the family continued to exist. Recognition of partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act did not by itself establish total disruption for estate duty purposes, so the lineal descendants' share remained liable to aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the account entry dated 31 March 1963 evidenced a severance in status and disruption of the Hindu joint family so as to prevent inclusion of the lineal descendants' share for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: The account entry was read as recording only a division of the family's business investment in the partnership firm and a partial partition of some movable assets. The entry did not show a clear and unequivocal intention by the family members to separate from the joint family as a whole or to live apart as divided members. Severance in status depends on the facts of each case and on whether the document relied upon manifests an intention to disrupt the entire joint family. On the facts, the family continued to exist, and the earlier recognition of partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act did not establish a total disruption of the joint family for estate duty purposes.

Conclusion: The alleged severance in status was not proved, the joint family was held to have continued, and the lineal descendants' share was liable to be aggregated under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act.

---