HUF ownership of house properties prevailed where joint family funds and family arrangement established the true source of acquisition.

Income from the house properties was treated as belonging to the Hindu undivided family, not to the assessee individually, because the assessee showed that funds received from his father were meant for the joint family and were used, with later accretions, to acquire and construct the properties. The father's letter was taken as supporting either a division of family properties or gifts for the benefit of the joint family, establishing a joint family nucleus. Later individual declarations in sale deeds or earlier returns did not change the true legal character of the properties, and settlement deeds in favour of daughters were treated as part of a valid family arrangement consistent with HUF ownership.

---

---

Issues: Whether the income from the house properties was assessable in the assessee's individual hands or belonged to his Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The assessee established that funds received from his father were intended for the benefit of himself and his sons as members of a joint family, and that those funds, together with further accretions, were utilized for acquiring and constructing the properties. The Court treated the father's letter as evidencing either a division of family properties or gifts made for the benefit of the joint family, both of which supported the existence of joint family nucleus. It further held that subsequent individual declarations in sale deeds or earlier returns did not alter the true legal character of the properties. The settlement deeds in favour of the daughters were also treated as part of a valid family arrangement and not inconsistent with HUF ownership.

Conclusion: The properties were HUF properties and the related income was not includible in the assessee's individual assessments.

---