No Coparcenary Rights in Self-Acquired Property Bequeathed by Will:  Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Where the property is self-acquired and validly bequeathed by Will, daughters cannot invoke coparcenary rights” – Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the legality of a registered Will that excluded daughters from inheritance and dismissed their claim for joint possession in alleged ancestral property. The Court held that once a property is proven to be self-acquired and validly bequeathed, daughters cannot claim a share under coparcenary law, even after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.

Justice Nidhi Gupta emphasized that the Will dated 19.06.2006, by which the father transferred his property solely to his son, had been duly executed and attested in compliance with Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming that no substantial question of law arose, and the findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts were neither illegal nor perverse.

“Will Validly Executed and Attested — No Grounds for Challenge Without Specific Pleadings”

“A challenge to a Will must stand on clear pleadings — allegations of fraud or coercion cannot be introduced for the first time at trial” – observed the Court while rejecting the appellants’ belated attempt to question the Will’s genuineness.

The daughters, who were appellants before the High Court, had initially not pleaded any fraud, coercion, or lack of testamentary capacity in their plaint. The Court found that the entire challenge to the Will was raised for the first time during trial, without laying any foundational pleadings.

The Court quoted the settled principle: “No foundational pleadings were made challenging the execution of the Will; such allegations cannot be entertained as an afterthought during evidence.” [Para 9]

The High Court affirmed that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were right in holding that the Will was proved through the testimony of the attesting witness and Sub-Registrar, satisfying the statutory requirements of Sections 63 and 68.

“Property Purchased by Deceased Is Self-Acquired — Daughters Cannot Claim Coparcenary Share”

“The land was purchased by the deceased through a registered sale deed — it was not ancestral in character” – the Court found while rejecting the claim of coparcenary rights raised by the daughters.

The appellants’ core contention was that the property was ancestral and that, as daughters, they were entitled to an equal share by birth. However, both lower courts found that the property had been purchased by the deceased in his own name through a registered sale deed, and no evidence was led to show it had ancestral origins.

The High Court concurred with this finding and held that: “In the absence of any evidence to show that the property was ancestral, the Trial Court rightly concluded that the same was self-acquired. Therefore, the father had every right to dispose of the property by Will in favour of his son.” [Paras 8–9]

Thus, the daughters’ claim for inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act failed, as the Will lawfully governed the succession of the self-acquired property.

“Second Appeal Must Involve Substantial Question of Law — Not A Forum for Re-Appreciation of Evidence”

“No perversity or misapplication of law has been shown — mere disagreement with concurrent factual findings does not constitute a question of law” – the Court reiterated while dismissing the second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Justice Gupta held that both lower courts had reached their conclusions after a detailed appreciation of evidence, and no substantial question of law was raised that would warrant interference by the High Court. The Court emphasized that:

“Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is not an opportunity to re-litigate on facts or contest concurrent findings. Unless a legal error is demonstrated, findings of fact must stand.” [Para 11]

The High Court refused to interfere with the lower courts’ conclusion that the Will was genuine, the property was self-acquired, and the daughters had no share in it.

“Registered Title and Revocation of Licence Entitle Owner to Mandatory Injunction — No Need for Separate Possession Suit”

In a connected case between family members, involving a suit for mandatory injunction by a daughter-in-law (Raj Bala) against her brother-in-law (Naresh Kumar), the Court affirmed another crucial legal principle — that a rightful owner is not required to file a separate suit for possession when the occupant’s presence is permissive and the licence stands revoked.

“Where the plaintiff establishes that the defendant’s possession was permissive, a decree for mandatory injunction is sufficient — a separate suit for possession is not needed” — ruled Justice Mandeep Pannu in the related matter.

The Court found that Raj Bala had acquired ownership through a registered sale deed dated 12.09.2016 executed by her mother-in-law, and that Naresh Kumar was occupying the premises merely as a licensee, allowed to reside temporarily until his accommodation was arranged.

When the family dispute escalated and permission was revoked, his possession became unauthorized. The Court noted:

“The moment such permission was revoked, their possession became unauthorized. The law does not require a separate suit for possession in such circumstances.” [Para 18]

The Court dismissed the argument that the suit was not maintainable in the form of a mandatory injunction. It clarified that the reliance on Parkash v. Raj Kumar and Sant Ram v. Daya Ram was misplaced as those cases dealt with non-possessory claimants and co-owners, whereas here the plaintiff was a registered owner, and the defendants were permissive occupants.

“A Registered Sale Deed Carries Presumption of Truth — Defendants Failed to Rebut or Prove Exclusive Construction”

The High Court also dealt with a plea that the house built on the land was constructed by the appellants from their own funds and that only the land was sold, not the house. The Court rejected this defence as baseless, noting that:

“The sale of land includes the structure standing upon it, unless expressly excluded. The registered sale deed was duly proved, and no evidence was led by the appellants to substantiate the claim of exclusive construction.”

Significantly, the vendor of the sale deed — the mother of appellant No. 1 — was never examined to support the defence’s allegations of fraud or undue influence, undermining their own case.

Succession Law, Will Validity, and Possession Rights Decisively Settled

Through these detailed and concurrent judgments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed multiple key legal principles:

“Where a Will is validly executed and attested, and the property is self-acquired, the testator’s right to exclude legal heirs is absolute.”

“Daughters cannot claim coparcenary rights in property proven to be self-acquired and lawfully bequeathed.”

“A suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable by a registered owner against a licensee whose occupation becomes unauthorized upon revocation.”

“Second Appeals are not a forum for challenging concurrent factual findings unless a substantial legal error is shown.”

Both the succession appeal by the daughters and the injunction appeal by the brother-in-law were dismissed, upholding the sanctity of registered documents, title ownership, and the limitation of coparcenary claims in cases of valid testamentary succession.

Date of Decision: October 15, 2025