9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment of the deceased as property which belonged to the deceased in his individual capacity ?" This reference relates to the assessment of the estate of the deceased, S. Tahl Singh. The items of properties left by the deceased consisted of various bank accounts either in the name of the deceased or in the joint names of the deceased with his wife or his son, some agricultural land in District Karnal, Punjab, plots of land at Delhi and Dehradun and verified claims for properties left in Pakistan. The accountable person submitted a return voluntarily and claimed that the deceased had only one-third share in the various items of property, and that the accountable person and the widow held the remaining two-thirds share inasmuch as the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm the nucleus for the acquisition of such a vast estate. In respect of the statement by Dr. Mathura Das and the application filed by the deceased for allotment of land, he held that from the application and the statement of Dr. Mathura Das, it was clear that the land which was said to be owned by the deceased in Pakistan belonged to the bigger coparcenary up to the date of migration from Pakistan, and no partition had taken place. He held that the income, if any, derived from this land was of the composite coparcenary and did not belong exclusively to the deceased. He also took into account the fact that Dr. Mathura Das had stated that the deceased was an engineer in the P. W. D. and as such held that it was probable that the deceased migh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in lieu of which they were granted agricultural lands in Karnal of the value of Rs. 9,000 and as such held that a part of the estate belongs to the Hindu undivided family and as such excluded an amount of Rs.36,000 from the value taken by the Assistant Controller. Counsel for the applicant has contended that the Board having found that there was a joint family nucleus for acquisition of some property it erred in not allowing the claim in its entirety. Nextly, it has been contended that even if it be assumed that the properties belonged to the deceased, the deceased had thrown these properties in the common hotch pot and as a result individual properties of the deceased blended with the joint properties held by the Hindu undivided family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless there is evidence which establishes the intention of the individual to blend the property with that of the Hindu undivided family by throwing it in the common hotchpot. In the present case, in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the view of the Board on this aspect of the controversy was erroneous in law. Coming now to the first contention, it is now well settled that the mere existence of joint family property does not lead to a presumption that the property held by a member of the family is joint, and the burden of proof rests on the person asserting that the entire property was joint. The person setting up this claim must show by good evidence that there was adequate nucleus out of which the acquisition could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
