IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 13.10.2025 Pronounced on:27.10.2025 Amarjit Singh and Others … Appellants Versus Rattan Singh and Others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raghav Agnihotri. Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate with Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1987 of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Samrala, were set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that the plaintiffs, Amarjit Singh and others, filed a suit for the joint possession of agricultural land measuring 217 kanals 1 marla, situated in village Garhi Tarkhana, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. The plaintiffs are the sons of defendant no.1, Rattan Singh, and claimed that the land in dispute was ancestral, constituting Joint Hindu family coparcenary property in the hands of Rattan Singh, who as Karta had no right to alienate the same without legal necessity. They challenged three sale deeds executed by Rattan Singh in favour of defendants Mohinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh as being void and not binding on their rights. The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit, holding two of the sale deeds (Ex.D3 and Ex.D4) to be without legal necessity and declaring them void, while upholding one sale deed (Ex.D2) as valid. The learned First Appellate Court, however, reversed the decree and dismissed the suit, holding that the property devolved upon Rattan Singh under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as his separate property, and therefore, the plaintiffs had no locus to challenge the alienations. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present regular second appeal.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contented that the property in question was ancestral in nature, having descended from Chanan Singh, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, to his sons including defendant no.1-Rattan Singh, and thus retained its character as coparcenary property. It was urged that Rattan Singh, being only the Karta of the family, could not have alienated the suit land without proving legal necessity or benefit to the estate. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, had rightly recorded a finding that the sale deeds Exhibit-D3 and Exhibit-D4 were without legal necessity, which could not have been disturbed by the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur, 2020 (14) SCC 436 and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, 2020 (9) SCC 1, contending that the ancestral character of the property was not extinguished merely because succession took place under the Hindu Succession Act. It was argued that the First Appellate Court erred in misapplying the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) and in reversing a well-reasoned decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit. It was contended that Chanan Singh died after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and his estate devolved under Section 8 of the Act. The said provision provides for devolution upon the heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule, namely, the widow and sons, who take as tenants-in-common and not as coparceners. Consequently, the property that came to Rattan Singh under Section 8 of the Act became his separate and self-acquired property. It was further argued that the plaintiffs, being sons of Rattan Singh, did not acquire any