Property Gifted by Grandfather Is Not Ancestral in Hands of Father: Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Decrees Declaring Daughters as Co-parceners

"Defendant No. 2 received the property through a Transfer Deed—not by inheritance. Hence, the suit land is not ancestral property," ruled Justice Virinder Aggarwal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, decisively altering the trajectory of a long-standing family dispute over Hindu joint family property.

Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a significant judgment delineating the distinction between inherited and gifted property under Hindu law. The Court overturned the concurrent findings of two lower courts that had declared the daughters of a karta as co-parceners in ancestral property, ruling instead that the suit property was not ancestral, thereby nullifying their claim.

No Birthright in Property Gifted by Grandfather, Rules Court

The dispute centered around a sale deed executed by the plaintiffs’ father (Defendant No. 2), which was challenged by his daughters (the plaintiffs) as being a fraudulent transfer of their ancestral co-parcenary property. The lower courts had held in their favor. However, the High Court firmly held:

“Once defendant No. 2 has taken the land on the basis of Transfer Deed from his father… the property in the hands of defendant No. 2 would not be ancestral and co-parcenary property of joint Hindu Family.”

This marks a significant reinforcement of the legal doctrine that property obtained by gift, even if from a grandfather, is not ipso facto ancestral unless inherited through succession.

The plaintiffs, daughters of defendant No. 2, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming joint ownership over agricultural land measuring 47 kanals 11 marlas, situated in village Ladpur, Palwal, Faridabad. They asserted that the land was ancestral and co-parcenary in nature and that they, being daughters of the karta, had a right in the property.

They challenged a 2007 sale deed executed by their father in favor of his brother (Defendant No. 1), claiming no legal necessity, no sale consideration, and undue influence under intoxication. Their suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, and upheld in first appeal by the Additional District Judge in 2016.

Was the Property Ancestral in the Hands of Defendant No. 2?

Both lower courts concluded that the land was ancestral and co-parcenary property based on admissions and revenue records. However, the High Court criticized this conclusion as factually incorrect and legally flawed.

"Mere assertion in the plaint and admission thereof in the written statement would not clothe the Court to presume ancestral nature of the property," observed the Court, citing Hari Kishan v. Rati Ram, 2018 (4) PLR 783.

Further, the Court emphasized:

"To find out whether a property is or is not ancestral… the mode of transmission also must be looked to; and the property can ordinarily be reckoned as ancestral only if the present holder has got it by virtue of his being a son or descendant of the original owner."

Relying on C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar (AIR 1953 SC 495), the Court held that property gifted by a grandfather to his son becomes the latter's absolute property unless inherited.

Effect of the Relinquishment/Transfer Deed

The crux of the matter was a 1996 "Relinquishment Deed" (Exhibit DW1/A) through which Bir Singh (grandfather) transferred the land to his sons Kamal Singh and Kiran Pal without consideration.

The High Court clarified that though titled a "relinquishment," the document functioned as a gift deed or transfer, thereby altering the nature of the property.

"Intention of Bir Singh was not to relinquish his share… but to transfer the land. Hence, it cannot be treated as ancestral in the hands of defendant No. 2."

The Court relied on AIR 1965 Andhra Pradesh 177 (Katragadda China Anjaneyulu v. Kattragadda China Ramayya) and other rulings to support its view that a gift or specific transfer to family members strips the property of its ancestral character in their hands.

Whether Daughters Could Challenge the Sale Deed?

Since the Court held the land to be self-acquired property in the hands of defendant No. 2, the daughters' claim as co-parceners fell flat.

“Plaintiffs had no right to challenge the sale deed… It was only defendant No. 2 who could have raised the plea of fraud.”

The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ standing to contest the alienation, holding that during the lifetime of the father, daughters had no locus unless the property was ancestral.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal laid bare the legal missteps of the courts below, finding that:

• The lower courts had misapplied the law relating to pleadings by discarding the Relinquishment Deed for not being pleaded specifically.

• They erroneously presumed the ancestral nature of the property based on admissions and revenue records, which do not substitute legal proof.

• The property, being a gifted estate, became the self-acquired property of the father and hence, he held absolute title to sell it without needing consent from his daughters.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decrees passed by both the Civil Court and First Appellate Court, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit entirely.

This ruling reaffirms the critical distinction under Hindu law between property inherited and property received by gift or specific transfer. It reiterates that daughters' rights as co-parceners in a Hindu Undivided Family cannot extend to properties that are self-acquired by their fathers through such gifts.

“The findings of the Courts below that the suit property in the hands of defendant No. 2 would be ancestral and co-parcenary property is certainly wrong,” concluded the High Court, thereby extinguishing the plaintiffs’ claim.

Date of Decision: 26th August, 2025