"Claims of Ancestral Property Must Be Backed by Evidence," Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal by Smt. Bimla Devi, who challenged the decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court regarding her claim over ancestral property. The High Court, in its judgment dated August 21, 2024, found no substantial evidence to support the appellant’s claim that the disputed land was ancestral and ruled that the property had devolved as self-acquired property upon her father, the primary respondent.

The case centered around a dispute over a piece of land claimed by the appellant, Smt. Bimla Devi, as ancestral property. Bimla Devi argued that the land, originally owned by her grandfather, Gopal, was ancestral, and that she, as a coparcener, had a pre-existing right to it from birth. She further contested a decree dated February 26, 2011, through which her father, Hari Singh, had transferred the property to her step-brothers and step-mother, arguing that the transfer was illegal as it involved ancestral property.

In response, the defendants, including her father, step-brothers, and step-mother, refuted her claims, asserting that the land was not ancestral but had become self-acquired property after the death of Gopal in 1989. They argued that the land was lawfully transferred by Hari Singh, who was its rightful owner.

The High Court noted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had found no documentary evidence to substantiate the appellant’s claim that the property was ancestral. The court observed, "The plaintiff-appellant failed to adduce any evidence that the suit property was ancestral or coparcenary in nature, and there was no indication that the property was passed through four male lineal descendants." The court emphasized that merely claiming the land was ancestral without proof was insufficient to establish a legal right over it.

The judgment highlighted that under Hindu Succession Law, for property to be considered ancestral, it must pass through four generations of male descendants without partition. The court pointed out that since the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the land was inherited in this manner, it could not be treated as ancestral. The court also clarified that upon the death of Gopal in 1989, the property was inherited by all his legal heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, thus transforming it into self-acquired property for the father, Hari Singh.

The judgment underscored the importance of proving the ancestral nature of property with clear evidence. "In order to prove the continuity of coparcenary, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that at the time of Gopal’s death, the property was ancestral and passed to his descendants as coparcenary property," the court stated. It further ruled that, "In the absence of such reliable evidence, the findings recorded by both the Courts are unimpeachable."

The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal reaffirms the necessity of substantive evidence in property disputes, particularly in cases involving claims of ancestral rights. By upholding the decisions of the lower courts, the High Court has set a precedent emphasizing that claims of coparcenary rights must be supported by clear documentary proof. This ruling underscores the criticality of demonstrating the ancestral nature of property to establish legal claims in such cases.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2024

Smt. Bimla Devi v. Hari Singh & Others