IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:17.02.2026 Balwinder Kaur @ Preeto and Another …..Appellants Vs.

Pippal Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by two of the defendants assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plain’ffs—legal heirs of Jindo, has been partly decreed, and the appeal preferred by the present appellants has been dismissed by the learned Addi’onal District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 16.03.2023

2. The dispute pertains to the estate of Ujagar Singh, who admi4edly expired on 10.08.1969. It is not in controversy that he was owner in possession of the suit land. He had four daughters, namely Jindo, Kirpal Kaur, Harnam Kaur and Pritam Kaur. Pritam Kaur had pre-deceased him issue-less. Consequently, upon his death, he was survived by three daughters—Jindo, Kirpal Kaur and Harnam Kaur.

3. The plain’ffs are the legal heirs of Jindo. The defendants and proforma defendants are the legal heirs of Kirpal Kaur and Harnam Kaur.

4. The case set up by the plain’ffs was that Ujagar Singh died intestate and, therefore, his estate devolved by natural succession equally upon his three surviving daughters. However, muta’on of inheritance was sanc’oned exclusively in favour of Kirpal Kaur. Thereaer, Kirpal Kaur executed a General Power of A4orney in favour of Balkar Singh, who, on 24.07.2008, executed sale deeds in favour of the present appellants. The plain’ffs challenged the muta’on and the sale deeds to the extent they affected their share.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants, who pleaded that Kirpal Kaur had been residing with and serving Ujagar Singh and, therefore, the muta’on was rightly sanc’oned in her favour. It was further pleaded that the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value, that the suit was barred by limita’on and that Kirpal Kaur had perfected ’tle by adverse possession. Significantly, no Will of Ujagar Singh was pleaded or proved.

6. Upon apprecia’on of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding that Ujagar Singh died intestate. It was further held that his estate devolved by natural succession upon his three daughters in equal shares. Consequently, Kirpal Kaur was owner only to the extent of 1/3rd share and could not have conveyed ’tle beyond that share. The sale deeds dated 24.07.2008 were thus set aside to the extent they affected the shares of the other co-sharers. The suit was accordingly partly decreed.

7. The appellants preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned Addi’onal District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 16.03.2023

8. The first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court, holding that inheritance had opened by natural succession; that limita’on did not defeat the substan’ve right flowing from inheritance; that adverse possession against co-sharers was neither pleaded nor proved in accordance with law; and that the plain’ffs, being non-executants of the sale deeds, were not required to affix ad valorem court fee.

9. Assailing the concurrent findings before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has primarily contended that the plain’ffs failed to establish that Jindo was the daughter of Ujagar Singh and that the suit was barred by limita’on. It has also been reiterated that the appellants are bona fide purchasers.

10. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.

11. A specific finding was recorded by the trial Court that Jindo was the daughter of Ujagar Singh. That finding, based on apprecia’on of evidence, was not successfully assailed before the first Appellate Court. The same stands affirmed. The said finding is purely factual in nature. No perversity, misreading of evide