IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagir Singh and another . . . Appellants vs.

Davinder Singh and others . . . . Respondents Reserved on: March 18, 2026 Pronounced on: March 24, 2026 Pronounced fully/opera5ve part : Fully * * * *

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain ffs against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by them for declara on and permanent injunc on, which had been decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26.03.1992, came to be reversed and dismissed vide judgment dated 09.08.1996.

2. For the sake of convenience, the par es are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The record of the Courts below, available on DMS, has been perused.

3. The plain ffs are the sons of the sole defendant Saudagar Singh. Their case, as set up in the plaint, is that the suit property was inherited by their father from his predecessor Gurdit Singh and, therefore, it assumed the character of ancestral coparcenary property. It is claimed that by virtue of their birth, the plain ffs acquired a right in the suit property and became co- parceners. It was further pleaded that a family se3lement had taken place, in terms whereof, the suit land fell to the share of the plain ffs and they came into cul va ng possession thereof. Alleging that the defendant, on the strength of contrary revenue entries, was threatening to interfere in their possession, the plain ffs ins tuted the suit seeking declara on of ownership in equal shares along with consequen al relief of permanent injunc on.

4. The defendant contested the suit by asser ng that the suit property was self-acquired property and not ancestral in nature. The alleged family se3lement was denied. Preliminary objec ons regarding maintainability, locus standi, and non-joinder of necessary par es were also raised. On merits, while the rela onship between the par es was not disputed, the claim of the plain ffs regarding coparcenary rights was specifically refuted.

5. The trial Court, upon apprecia on of the evidence on record, decreed the suit holding that the property was ancestral in nature and that a family se3lement had taken place, in which the plain ffs were allo3ed shares. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from interfering in their possession.

6.1 However, in appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the said findings. It was held that the plain ffs had failed to prove that the suit property was ancestral coparcenary in nature. The Appellate Court no ced that although the plain ffs had relied upon Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawari entries, they had failed to produce the crucial revenue excerpts or pedigree table to establish that the property had descended through the requisite genera ons so as to acquire the character of ancestral property. It was further observed that the oral asser on that part of the property had been purchased from income of ancestral property was beyond the pleadings and, therefore, could not be relied upon.

6.2 The First Appellate Court also found that even though the defendant had admi3ed that a small por on of land measuring about 4–5 Killas was ancestral, there was no evidence to iden fy the specific por on of such land. On the contrary, the evidence on record indicated that a substan al part of the property had been purchased by the defendant in his own name, thereby retaining its character as self-acquired property. The conten on of the plain ffs that adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant for non- produc on of sale deeds was rejected on the se3led principle that a plain ff must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot take advantage of any weakness in the defence.

6.3 With regard to the alleged family se3lement, the First Appellate Court held that there was no co