##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

133 RSA-3152-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision.: 07.04.2026

Kumari Indra @ Indra and another …..Appellants Vs.

Sona Ram and another .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–plain"ff assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment & decree dated 28.09.2021 passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed and the findings recorded by the trial Court were

affirmed.

2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudica"on of the present appeal, are that the appellant–plain"ff ins"tuted a suit for declara"on, possession and permanent injunc"on with the averment that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary in nature. It was pleaded that the plain"ff, being the granddaughter of defendant No.1, had acquired a coparcenary right in the suit property by virtue of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. It was further alleged that defendant No.1, without any legal necessity and without having any exclusive right, executed a release deed dated 23.07.2015 in favour of defendant No.2, which was illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-3152-2025 (O&M)

plain"ff.

3. The defendants contested the suit by denying that the suit property was ancestral. It was asserted that the property was self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and had devolved upon him through a registered Will executed by his predecessor. It was thus pleaded that defendant No.1 was absolute owner in possession of the suit property and was fully competent to execute the release deed in favour of defendant No.2. The claim of the plain"ff was, therefore, stated to be devoid of merit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and par"es led evidence. Upon apprecia"on of the en"re evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plain"ff had failed to prove that the suit property was ancestral or coparcenary in nature. The learned First Appellate Court, on re-apprecia"on of the evidence, concurred

with the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record. It has been argued that the suit property ought to have been treated as ancestral and that defendant No.1 had no authority to execute the release deed in favour of defendant No.2. It is further submi>ed that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and liable to be

set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.

7. At the outset, it may be no"ced that the scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal is limited. This Court can interfere only when a substan"al ques"on of law arises. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed unless it is shown that the same are perverse, based on misreading of evidence or suffer from a patent illegality.

Page No. 2 of 5 Pages

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-3152-2025 (O&M)

8. In the present case, the en"re claim of the plain"ff hinges upon the asser"on that the suit property is ancestral and coparcenary in nature. However, both the Courts below have, on the basis of documentary evidence, par"cularly the revenue record and muta"on entries, recorded a categorical finding that the property devolved upon defendant No.1 by

virtue of a registered Will and not by way of inheritance.

9. It is well se>led that property inherited through a Will does not assume the character of ancestral property. In order to establish a property as an