IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 Ranjit Kaur and Another … Appellants Versus Narinder Singh Khatra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present :- Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate and Ms.Prerna, Advocate and Mr. Shiv Pratap, Advocate and for Caveator/Respondent No. 1 and 2.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

1. Appellants/Plaintiffs filed this regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs for Declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20.05.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court and appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.2019.

2. Briefly stated, Appellants/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that property in dispute was Ancestral and Joint Hindu family coparcenary property in hands of Gurdial Singh (father of plaintiffs and defendant no. 1, 3 and 4) and that the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1991 in suit titled as “Narinder Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh” in favour of defendant no 1. is not binding on the rights of the appellants-plaintiffs qua suit property. Respondents/Defendants No.1 and 2 controverted the fact that the suit property was Ancestral and Joint Hindu coparcenary property.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial court:

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Relief

4. After hearing arguments, the suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana as Appellants/Plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit property was ancestral and Joint Hindu coparcenary property standing in the name of Gurdial Singh and that no details of the fraud and misrepresentation have been pleaded in the plaint.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment so passed, the appeal was filed. Additional District Judge, Patiala dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the present appeal has been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the Appellants-Plaintiffs contended that the property in dispute constituted Joint Hindu Family ancestral coparcenary property in hands of Gurdial Singh. Consequently, upon the coming into force of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters became coparceners by birth with the same rights as sons, and were entitled to equal share. It was further argued that the consent decree dated 2.12.1991 suffered in favour of defendant No.1 Narinder Singh was ineffective in law, as he had no pre-existing right in the property and the decree, being unregistered, could not confer any right, title, or interest. On this basis, it was urged that the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring the legal position and in denying declaration in favour of the plaintiffs.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for Caveator/ respondent no. 1 and 2 argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the property was ancestral coparcenary property or that they had any right in the same during lifetime of Gurdial Singh and were estopped by their conduct from challenging the consent decree and transfer. It was submitted that Arjan Singh had executed a gift deed in favour of Gurdev Singh and Gurdial Singh and had also suffered a consent decree and executed a Will in favour of his sons, thereby conferring rights upon them and making the property self-acquired in the hands of Gurdial Singh.