Individual ownership versus HUF property: mere non-disclosure is not enough to prove blending under Hindu succession principles.

Property devolving on the son of a female Hindu under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was taken in his individual capacity, because section 14 enlarged the female ancestor's stridhana rights into absolute ownership and succession on intestacy then passed under section 15(1)(a). A claim that the property had been blended into Hindu undivided family property failed, as blending requires clear and positive conduct showing an intention to abandon separate ownership and throw the asset into the common stock. Mere non-disclosure in tax returns, use of income, or later references in assessment proceedings was insufficient. The property therefore remained individual property, and its income was not assessable as HUF income.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned house property, after devolving on the male heir of a female Hindu, could be treated as Hindu undivided family property by reason of alleged blending, and whether the property income was therefore assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family rather than in the individual hands of the heirs.

Analysis: The property was originally settled on the female ancestor as stridhana with limited rights, which stood enlarged into absolute ownership by virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On her intestate death, succession was governed by section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under which the son inherited in his individual capacity. The alleged blending was not established, because blending requires clear and positive conduct showing a voluntary throwing of separate property into the common stock with an intention to abandon separate ownership; mere omission to disclose the asset in wealth-tax or income-tax returns, or use of the property income, was insufficient. The materials also did not prove that the father had treated the property as family property by any unequivocal act. The later assessment or estate duty references did not create a binding conclusion on ownership for the relevant year, and the succession position under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, remained decisive.

Conclusion: The property remained the individual property of the heirs and its income was not assessable as Hindu undivided family income.

Ratio Decidendi: Property devolving under section 8 and section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is taken by the heir in his individual capacity, and a claim of blending into Hindu undivided family property must be proved by clear positive intention and conduct, not by mere omission or non-disclosure.

---