Testamentary succession and HUF property: inherited assets are not joint family property absent proved declaration or conduct of conversion.

Property devolving on a separated coparcener under a will is taken by succession, not survivorship, and does not become Hindu undivided family property merely because it had earlier been ancestral; on that basis, such property is treated as the recipient's individual property for wealth-tax purposes. Separate property can still be impressed with joint family character, but only if there is clear evidence of declaration or conduct showing conversion. Where the record does not identify the properties allegedly so treated and no definite declaration is proved, the issue requires fresh factual examination and disposal on evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether properties devolving on the karta under a will could be excluded from the net wealth of the Hindu undivided family as his individual properties; (ii) Whether the properties, though received by testamentary succession, had been impressed with the character of joint family properties.

Issue (i): Whether properties devolving on the karta under a will could be excluded from the net wealth of the Hindu undivided family as his individual properties

Analysis: A person who has separated from the joint family has absolute power to dispose of the share received on partition. Properties acquired out of his own funds after partition are likewise his absolute properties. Property devolving by testamentary succession takes the recipient's title by succession and not by survivorship, and does not become joint family property merely because it was ancestral at an earlier stage.

Conclusion: Yes. The properties devolving under the will could not be treated as joint family properties on that basis and were liable to be considered as the individual properties of the recipient.

Issue (ii): Whether the properties, though received by testamentary succession, had been impressed with the character of joint family properties

Analysis: The question whether separate properties were converted into joint family properties depends on evidence of declaration or conduct. The record did not identify the properties said to have been so treated, and there was no clear declaration of conversion. Relevant evidence, including the treatment of similar properties and the effect of subsequent partition proceedings, was not on record.

Conclusion: The matter on this issue was remitted for fresh disposal after marshalling the necessary evidence.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the legal character of property received by testamentary succession, but the question whether such property had been converted into joint family property required fresh factual determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Property received by a coparcener through testamentary succession from a separated ancestor is not joint family property merely because it was ancestral earlier, though it may still be impressed with Hindu undivided family character by a proved declaration or conduct.

---