[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh Etc vs Davinder Singh Etc on 24 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2626 of 1996 (O&M)
Jagir Singh and another . . . Appellants
vs.
Davinder Singh and others . . . . Respondents
Reserved on: March 18, 2026
Pronounced on: March 24, 2026
Pronounced fully/opera5ve part : Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By:- Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain ffs
against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby
the suit filed by them for declara on and permanent injunc on, which had been
decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26.03.1992, came to be reversed
and dismissed vide judgment dated 09.08.1996.
2. For the sake of convenience, the par es are being referred to as
per their status before the trial Court. The record of the Courts below, available
on DMS, has been perused.
3. The plain ffs are the sons of the sole defendant Saudagar Singh.
Their case, as set up in the plaint, is that the suit property was inherited by their
father from his predecessor Gurdit Singh and, therefore, it assumed the
character of ancestral coparcenary property. It is claimed that by virtue of their
birth, the plain ffs acquired a right in the suit property and became co-
parceners. It was further pleaded that a family se3lement had taken place, in
terms whereof, the suit land fell to the share of the plain ffs and they came into
cul va ng possession thereof. Alleging that the defendant, on the strength of
1 of 4
RSA No.2626 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 046148
contrary revenue entries, was threatening to interfere in their possession, the
plain ffs ins tuted the suit seeking declara on of ownership in equal shares
along with consequen al relief of permanent injunc on.
4. The defendant contested the suit by asser ng that the suit
property was self-acquired property and not ancestral in nature. The alleged
family se3lement was denied. Preliminary objec ons regarding maintainability,
locus standi, and non-joinder of necessary par es were also raised. On merits,
while the rela onship between the par es was not disputed, the claim of the
plain ffs regarding coparcenary rights was specifically refuted.
5. The trial Court, upon apprecia on of the evidence on record,
decreed the suit holding that the property was ancestral in nature and that a
family se3lement had taken place, in which the plain ffs were allo3ed shares.
Consequently, the defendant was restrained from interfering in their
possession.
6.1 However, in appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the said
findings. It was held that the plain ffs had failed to prove that the suit property
was ancestral coparcenary in nature. The Appellate Court no ced that although
the plain ffs had relied upon Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawari entries, they had
failed to produce the crucial revenue excerpts or pedigree table to establish that
the property had descended through the requisite genera ons so as to acquire
the character of ancestral property. It was further observed that the oral
asser on that part of the property had been purchased from income of
ancestral property was beyond the pleadings and, therefore, could not be relied
upon.
6.2 The First Appellate Court also found that even though the
defendant had admi3ed that a small por on of land measuring about 4-5 Killas
was ancestral, there was no evidence to iden fy the specific por on of such
land. On the contrary, the evidence on record indicated that a substan al part
of the property had been purchased by the defendant in his own name, thereby
retaining its character as self-acquired property. The conten on of the plain ffs
that adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant for non-
produc on of sale deeds was rejected on the se3led principle that a plain ff
2 of 4
RSA No.2626 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 046148
must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot take advantage of any
weakness in the defence.
6.3 With regard to the alleged family se3lement, the First Appellate
Court held that there was no cogent evidence to prove the same. No par culars
such as the date, manner, or terms of such se3lement had been brought on
record. The Appellate Court further observed that the revenue entries showing
possession of the plain ffs only reflected their status as sons of co-sharer i.e.,
defendant and did not confer any independent tle upon them. Accordingly, the
suit was dismissed.
7. Assailing the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has
argued that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned
findings of the trial Court and that the ancestral nature of the property stood
admi3ed, at least to some extent, by the defendant.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
supported the impugned judgment and contended that the findings recorded by
the First Appellate Court are based on proper apprecia on of evidence and do
not warrant interference in second appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the par es and upon perusal of
the record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal.
10. It is well se3led that in order to establish that a property is
ancestral coparcenary property under Hindu law, it must be shown that the
same has descended from the paternal ancestors through successive
genera ons. A mere asser on that the property was inherited from the father is
not sufficient to establish its ancestral character.
11. In the present case, the plain ffs have failed to produce any cogent
evidence, much less the necessary revenue pedigree or excerpt, to establish
such lineage. In the absence of proof that the property had descended through
the requisite genera ons, the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court that
the property is not ancestral cannot be faulted.
3 of 4
RSA No.2626 of 1996 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 046148
12. Even the plea that part of the property had been purchased from
the income of ancestral property cannot advance the case of the plain ffs,
firstly, because there is no such pleading in the plaint and, secondly, because
the evidence on record indicates that a substan al por on of the land was
acquired by the defendant in his own name. In such circumstances, the property
cannot be treated as ancestral merely on the basis of vague asser ons.
13. Further, the alleged family se3lement remains unsubstan ated. No
documentary evidence or reliable oral tes mony has been produced to prove its
existence or terms. The absence of such evidence renders the claim of the
plain ffs wholly untenable.
14. The entries in the revenue record showing possession of the
plain ffs do not advance their case either, as such possession is recorded in
their capacity as sons of the defendant, who is co-sharer, which in law is
deemed to be possession on behalf of the father and not independent
ownership.
15. It is also per nent to note that the jurisdic on of this Court in a
Regular Second Appeal under Sec on 100 CPC is confined to substan al
ques ons of law. The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are findings
of fact based on proper apprecia on of evidence and are neither perverse nor
contrary to law. No substan al ques on of law arises for considera on in the
present appeal.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the First
Appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial Court and
dismissed the suit of the plain ffs. No interference is called for.
17. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as
being devoid of any merit.
March 24, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
Whether reportable? : Yes/No
Uploaded on: March 24, 2026
4 of 4
