Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Ancestral Property Requires Proof of Unbroken Succession: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Coparcenary Claim

17 January 2025 3:58 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by Paramjit Singh, who challenged the sale of ancestral property executed by his grandfather, Deepo @ Dalip Singh. Justice Alka Sarin ruled that the plaintiff-appellant failed to substantiate his claims of the property being coparcenary in nature and upheld the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, which had earlier dismissed the suit.
The dispute revolved around a 1999 sale deed, wherein Deepo @ Dalip Singh sold the suit property to Jarnail Singh and others. Paramjit Singh sought to nullify the sale, claiming it violated coparcenary rights and was executed without legal necessity or the consent of other heirs.
Paramjit Singh contended that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary in nature, inherited through successive generations. He argued that his grandfather lacked the authority to alienate the property without establishing legal necessity or securing the consent of all coparceners. However, the High Court found that the appellant failed to present any credible evidence to substantiate his claims.
Justice Sarin noted that the revenue records and other documentation did not support the assertion that the property was ancestral or coparcenary. The Court observed, “It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish an unbroken line of succession proving the coparcenary nature of the property. The absence of such evidence renders the claim untenable.”
The Court further observed that the validity of the impugned sale deed had already been established in a prior suit decided in 1999, where a similar challenge to the ancestral status of the property was dismissed. Justice Sarin emphasized that the earlier judgment had attained finality, barring any fresh challenges to the same sale deed. The Court stated, “The findings in the previous litigation clearly establish that the suit property was self-acquired by Deepo @ Dalip Singh, granting him full authority to alienate it.”
The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, concluding that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. Justice Sarin reiterated the principle that allegations of coparcenary rights require clear and convincing evidence, which was lacking in this case. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with all pending applications also disposed of.
This decision reaffirms the importance of substantive evidence in claims involving ancestral property. It underscores that mere assertions of coparcenary rights are insufficient without corroboration through documented proof, especially when previous judgments have settled the property’s status. The judgment highlights the judiciary's role in upholding established legal precedents to prevent repetitive litigation.

 

Date of Decision: November 19, 2024.
 

Similar News