Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

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