assessee claimed that house property at Innispet, Rajahmundry which he received under will from his father as HUF property and income cannot be included in his individual assessment. ITO did not accept this submission. He held that intention of assessee's father that property should be treated as joint family property is not clear from will dated 7-8-1969 executed by him. Thus, house property which assessee got under will dated 7-8-1969 is individual property. Accordingly he included Rs. 1,000 as income from house property in his individual assessment. On appeal, AAC held that use of words 'Puthra Pouthra Paramparya' in will dated 7-8-1969 clearly indicates intention of executor that he intended properties to be enjoyed by his sons and their respective families. Thus, gift was to families of three sons which was to be enjoyed generation after generation. Thus, assessee's share in house property belongs to HUF and income cannot be assessed in individual assessment of assessee. Against same, revenue has preferred this appeal. 2. learned departmental representative submitted that language of 'will' clearly indicated that property was given to sons of executors but not to their families. Hence, AAC was wrong in holding that property belongs to HUF. learned counsel for assessee kly supported order of AAC. He urged that language of will clearly indicates that property was given to sons and their families under will dated 7-8-1969. He laid stress on words 'Puthra Pouthra Paramparya', and submitted that it clearly indicates that properties were given to families of sons of executor. Thus, AAC was justified in holding that house property belonged to HUF. 3. We have considered rival submissions. We have gone through will dated 7-8-1969. language of will does not indicate that properties were given to families of sons of executor. On other hand, it is clearly mentioned in clause (4) that four items of property mentioned therein shall be taken over by his three sons with equal shares and enjoy with absolute rights to gift, sale from generation to generation. words 'Puthra Pouthra Paramparya' do not indicate that properties have been given under will to families of three sons of executor. In M. P. Periakaruppan Chettiar v. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 1 Supreme Court considered use of words 'heirs, executors, administrators and assignees' used in gift deeds. On basis of above words in above case it was contended for assessee that gift was to sons as heads of respective families. Supreme Court did not accept this submission. It was held as under: "Mr. Desai further pointed out that gift was stated to be in favour of donees and 'their respective heirs, executors, administrators and assignees' which, according to him, indicated that really object of bounty were sons as head of their respective families. We are unable to agree. It is clear from deeds that donor's desire was to transfer properties to three sons whom he named and described as donees. It was not stated that donees would take property as head s of their family units. use of words 'heirs, executors, administrators and assignees', context in which they appear, in our opinion, indicate on contrary that gift was to sons absolutely, property gifted being both heritable and alienable. There is nothing in two documents to suggest that interest transferred to sons was limited in any way ...." (p. 5) above ratio squarely applies to instant case. There is nothing to indicate in will dated 7-8-1969 that property was given to families of three sons. There is noting to restrict enjoyment of property with full rights by three sons in their individual capacity. Thus, property has not been given to HUF of three sons under will dated 7-8-1969. They received properties in their individual capacity. Hence, income is assessable in their individual assessments. We reverse order of AAC and restore order of ITO. 4. In result, appeal is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. CHAKKA APPO RAO