Property inherited from father, grandfather or great-grandfather, remaining undivided for four generations, is ancestral coparcenary property; rights are acquired by birth. The plaintiff must prove ancestral nature through family pedigree table.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1955 - Section 6 - Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property - Self acquired property - Property inherited from father, grandfather or great-grandfather, remained undivided for four generations is ancestral coparcenary property - Rights are acquired by birth and not on death of ancestor - Property inherited from mother, grandmother, uncle, brother or any distant male relative cannot be termed as ancestral property - Shares of coparceners fluctuate with birth and death - Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 effective from September 9, 2005, removed gender discrimination by granting daughters equal rights in ancestral coparcenary property by birth. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

(B) Evidence - Proof of ancestral nature of property - Ancestral nature of property can be proved only by producing Excerpt (Intekhab)/ family pedigree table, as per Rules 5 and 6 of Chapter 9 of Volume 1 of High Court Rules and Orders - Presumption is in favour of land being non-ancestral unless proved to the contrary - Burden is upon plaintiff to prove that property is ancestral. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 27)

(C) Appeal - Scope - No illegality or irregularity in impugned judgment - Judgment of First Appellate Court upheld. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
The suit property was originally owned by Mehtab Singh. After his death, it was inherited by his sons Lachhman Singh and Sunder Singh. Lachhman Singh's share was inherited by his son Bakshish Singh (defendant No.1), who had two sons: Tirlok Singh (pre-deceased) and Santokh Singh (defendant No.2). Plaintiff No.1 is the widow and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Tirlok Singh. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property in the hands of Bakshish Singh, in which Tirlok Singh had half share by birth. They sought possession of 1/3rd share out of Bakshish Singh's share. The defendants contended that Bakshish Singh had sold his entire land to defendants and the property was not coparcenary. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the findings, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the nature of the suit property as Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property.

Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property. No family pedigree table in the form of Excerpt (Intekhab) was produced. The suit property was self acquired in the hands of Bakshish Singh, who was legally entitled to alienate it. The plaintiffs were not entitled to share in the property as widow and daughters of a deceased coparcener.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the property as widow and daughters of a coparcener who died before partition, whether notional/deemed partition takes place on the death of a coparcener, and whether Joint Hindu Family property can be sold by the karta in violation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ancestral coparcenary property is property inherited from father, grandfather or great-grandfather, remaining undivided for four generations. Rights are acquired by birth, not upon death of ancestor. The plaintiffs failed to prove the ancestral nature of the property and did not produce the required family pedigree table. The property was self acquired in the hands of Bakshish Singh, who could alienate it. The appeal was dismissed.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. what are the facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiffs and defendants? (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. what evidence was led by the parties and what were the findings of the trial court and first appellate court? (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. what were the submissions of the parties and the issues for determination? (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. what is the definition of ancestral coparcenary property and how is it proved? (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. what is the final conclusion of the court and the order? (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

1 The present appeal is directed against impugned judgment dated

04.08.2005 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred as defendants) had been accepted and suit filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred as plaintiff No.1) along with respondent No.5 (hereinafter referred as plaintiff No.2) had been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiffs before learned trial Court are that the original owner of the suit property was Mehtab Singh. After his death, the suit property was inherited by his two sons Lachhman Singh and Sunder Singh. The share of Lachhman Singh in suit property was inherited by his son Bakshish Singh (hereinafter referred as defendant No.1) who had two sons namely, Tirlok Singh (pre-deceased) and Santokh Singh (hereinafter referred as defendant No.2). Plaintiff No.1 is widow and plaintiff No.2 is daughter of Tirlok Singh, i.e. daughter-in-law and granddaughter of Bakshish Singh. Defendant No.2 is son of Bakshish Singh whereas, defendants No.3 and 4 are sons of Santokh Singh i.e.

grandsons of Bakshish Singh .

3. The plaintiffs further pleaded that suit property was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property in the hands of Bakshish Singh in which Tirlok Singh had ½ share by birth. Bakshish Singh-defendant No.1 was not competent to alienate sale deed but only to debar the plaintiffs to inherit the share of Tirlok Singh, executed sale deeds in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 5 and the plaintiffs prayed for possession of 1/3^rd share out of the share of Bakshish Singh; i.e. ½ share of the total land (as per the headnote), as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 Ex.P-3.

4. The defendants in their written statement contested the suit by raising the preliminary objections that defendant No.5- Bikramjit Singh was a minor and suit was illegal, null and void against him. On merits, the relationship of the parties inter se was admitted and defendants further pleaded that Bakshish Singh; defendant No.1, had already sold his entire land to defendants No.2 to 5 and question of his land being inherited by anybody else after his death, does not arise. The nature of suit property being Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property was also denied. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs had not affixed Ad Valorem court fee on the consideration of sale deeds.

5. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendants and reiterated the averments of the plaint.

6. Following issues were framed by learned trial Court:-

i) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession as prayed for? OPP ii) Whether defendants No.5 Bikramjit Singh is a minor? OPD iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD iv) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD v) Relief.

7. In order of prove their case, plaintiff No.1 stepped into the witness box as PW3 and corroborated the averments of plaint in her affidavit Ex. PC. Her statement was further corroborated by PW1 Didar Singh and PW2 Hardyal Singh. She also tendered in evidence copies of jamabandis Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3 for the years 1974-75, 1979-80 and 1999-2000, respectively and khasra girdawari Ex. P-4.

8. Santokh Singh; defendant No.2 got himself examined as DW-1 to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs.

9. On the basis of oral and documen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 86379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHSukhwinder Kaur – AppellantVersusSantokh Singh – RespondentIOIN_2-RSA-272_2006

Property inherited from father, grandfather or great-grandfather, remaining undivided for four generations, is ancestral coparcenary property; rights are acquired by birth. The plaintiff must prove ancestral nature through family pedigree table.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sukhwinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Santokh Singh – Respondent
IOIN_2-RSA-272_2006