IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Kesar Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Nirmala Devi and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellant for joint possession as owner of the suit land, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The case as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3 are related and form Joint Hindu Family. Therefore, plaintiff has right in the suit land. However, the defendants were depriving him of said right. Accordingly, plaintiff had filed instant suit on 22.12.2010. 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2017, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021.

Hence, present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the learned Courts below were in error in non- suiting the appellant as they failed to appreciate that defendant No.3 had inherited the suit property from his father Puran Singh. As such, being a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family, plaintiff had got a birth right in the suit land. It is contended that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that ancestral/coparcenary property will not lose its nature and character in the hands of defendant No.3 merely because it was inherited by him through Will from his father. The Courts below failed to appreciate that plaintiff cannot be divested of his birth right in the ancestral property by suffering a Consent Decree by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Moreover, defendant No.1 being daughter-in-law of defendant No.3 had no pre-existing right in the property in question. As such, Consent Decree dated 03.03.1989 (Ex.P4) required compulsory registration. However, this fact has not been considered by both the Courts below.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the Courts below did not consider that mere taking of some land by way of Relinquishment Deed dated 25.05.2002 (Ex.D1) from Defendant No. 2, does not take away the right of the Plaintiff as a coparcener in the ancestral property, rather it gives strength to the genuineness/legality of the claim of the Plaintiff. As such the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it is well settled that Consent Decree cannot be permitted regarding ancestral land by ignoring the rights of any coparcener. Whereas the Consent Decree dated 03.03.1989 (Ex.P-4) was passed in favour of Defendants without impleading the Plaintiff as a party.

7. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside.

8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. I have heard ld. counsel and perused case file in detail.

I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

9. First and foremost, the appellant has failed to establish ancestral nature of the suit property. The record reveals that as per Mutation No. 439 Ex.P6 Nasib Singh/defendant No.3/father of the plaintiff/appellant had inherited the property by virtue of registered Will No. 115/1 dated 05.01.1976. Clearly therefore, suit property was not ancestral in nature. Therefore, plaintiff can claim no birthright in the suit property. Consequentially, the Consent judgment and decree dated

03.03.1989 Ex.P4 was legal.

10. Even otherwise, suit of the plaintiff was hopelessly time barred. By way of instant suit, the plaintiff has laid challenge to the