https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169544 Property held by a sole surviving coparcener was treated as continuing joint family property where the Hindu undivided family itself still subsisted and remained capable of expansion by adoption. The temporary reduction of the coparcenary to one male member did not, by itself, change the character of the estate, because the owner's rights remained qualified by the incidents and potential rights of the family, including the possibility of a later adopted son. On that footing, the property fell within the statutory exemption for joint property of a Hindu undivided family under section 73 of the Estate Duty Ordinance, 1938, and estate duty could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 10 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jun 2018 15:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169544 Property held by a sole surviving coparcener was treated as continuing joint family property where the Hindu undivided family itself still subsisted and remained capable of expansion by adoption. The temporary reduction of the coparcenary to one male member did not, by itself, change the character of the estate, because the owner's rights remained qualified by the incidents and potential rights of the family, including the possibility of a later adopted son. On that footing, the property fell within the statutory exemption for joint property of a Hindu undivided family under section 73 of the Estate Duty Ordinance, 1938, and estate duty could not be sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169544