Separate property under Hindu succession law remains individual property despite continued role as karta in the family firm.

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act operates as a self-contained code for succession to a male Hindu's separate property, and it supersedes the pre-existing Mitakshara rule that property inherited from a grandfather became ancestral in the hands of the son, except where section 6 applies to Mitakshara coparcenary property. On the stated facts, property inherited by Ram Rakshpal from Durga Prasad, who had already separated in an earlier partition, was not treated as coparcenary property merely because Ram Rakshpal continued as karta of his own Hindu undivided family; the inherited share was therefore his individual property.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 1/2 share held by Ram Rakshpal in the partnership firm was held by him as karta of the Hindu undivided family or in his individual capacity.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, read with section 4, was treated as a self-contained code governing succession to the separate property of a male Hindu. The pre-existing Mitakshara rule that property inherited from the grandfather became ancestral in the hands of the son, with the grandson acquiring an interest by birth, was held to stand superseded for property devolving under section 8, except where section 6 applied to an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property. The property inherited by Ram Rakshpal from Durga Prasad, who had already separated from the earlier family partition, was not treated as coparcenary property in the hands of Ram Rakshpal merely because he continued as karta of his own family.

Conclusion: The inherited share was held by Ram Rakshpal in his individual capacity and not as karta of the assessee Hindu undivided family.

---