RSA-3131-2017 (O [116] Shyam Lal through his Bhagvati P LRs and oth Coram : Present : Pankaj Jai [1] [2] original po respondent [3] that they al of the suit judgment a titled as ‘ binding upo sought decr the suit pro 017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGA RSA-3131 Date of De m Lal (since deceased) gh his LRs versus vati Prasad through his and others Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj J Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Mann, Advocate with Mr. Harmandeep Mann, Advoc for respondent Nos.2 to 8. *** aj Jain, J. Defendants are in appeal. For convenience, parties here nal position(s) as in the Civil Suit, ndents as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking d they along with defendants be declared e suit property as detailed out in the ment and decree dated 13.05.1993 pas as ‘Shyam Lal versus Smt. Lali’ ing upon the rights of the plaintiffs. ht decree of permanent injunction restr uit property in any manner and from OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 3131-2017 (O&M) of Decision :12.03.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents nkaj Jain ocate with Advocate s hereinafter are referred to by the , i.e. appellants as defendants an king decree of declaration to the effe eclared as co-owners in joint possessio in the head-note of the plaint and th 93 passed in Civil Suit No.292 of 199 is illegal, null and void and is n . As a consequential relief, plaintif n restraining defendants from alienatin rom changing the nature of the same. 1 by their and e effect ssession and that of 1993 d is not laintiffs ienating ame. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3131-2017 (O [4] owner in po @ Jakalia same was i Lali Devi. Shanti Dev Devi was t defendant N plaintiffs c Hindu Fam share. [5] [6] had no son daughter by Devi died o with the pr property. A equal share way of Co Defendant that Shanti [7] he is lessee the suit lan 017 (O&M) As per the case pleaded by r in possession of the suit land. After kalia inherited the suit land from Th was inherited by his son Shyam Lal, Devi. The plaintiffs are LRs of Sh ti Devi, Shyam Lal filed a suit bearing was transferred in the name of defen dant No.1 had no pre-existing right tiffs claimed that the suit property w u Family and thus Shanti Devi had n Suit was contested by the defen Defendant No.1 in his written no son by the name of Jakalia. Juga hter by the name of Shanti Devi. Ho died on 23.05.1995. As per defendan the property in question. Jugal Kis erty. After him, the same was inherite l shares. Lali Devi transferred her sha of Court decree dated 13.05.1993 on ndant No.1 denied that the suit proper hanti Devi was coparcener. Defendant No.2 filed a separ lessee under defendant No.1, who is uit land. However, he claimed that a by the plaintiffs, one Thandu wa After his death, Jugla @ Jugal Kisho om Thandu. After death of Jugla, th Lal, daughter Shanti Devi and wido of Shanti Devi. Without impleadin earing No.292 of 1993. Share of Shan defendant No.1. Even though prese right in the share of Shanti Devi. Th erty was coparcenary property of Joi had no right to suffer decree qua e defendants. ritten statement claimed that Thandu Jugal Kishore son of Thandu had n . However, it is admitted that Shan fendant No.1, plaintiffs have no concer al Kishore was absolute owner of th nherited by Shyam Lal and Lali Devi er share in favour of defendant No.1 b 993 on the basis of family settlemen property was coparcenary property an eparate written statement, claiming th who is absolute owner in possession o that after defendant No.1 failed to p 2 du was Kishore , the widow pleading Shanti present . The of Joint ua her andu had no Shanti concern r of the Devi in No.1 by tlement. erty and ing that ssion of d to put RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3131-2017 (O defendant N [8] the Court o [9] Instance h daughter of was receive property. therefore Court of th of Jugal Ki The decree rights of th 017 (O&M) dant No.2 in possession, the lease dee On the basis of the pleadings, ourt of the First Instance:- “1. Whether Shanti mother Jugla? OPP 2. Whether the judgment d Suit No.292 of 1993 rea passed by the court of null and void? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs a suit land as alleged? OP 4. Whether the plaintiffs filing the suit by their ow 5. Whether the suit is no OPD 6. Whether in an alterna become owners of the possession? OPD 7. Relief. ” While answering Issue Nos. nce held that the plaintiffs successfu hter of Jugla @ Jugal Kishore @ Jaka received by Jugal Kishore from his fa erty. Shanti Devi had pre-existing Lali Devi had no right to transfe t of the First Instance accordingly held gal Kishore was entitled to 1/3 share i decree dated 13.05.1993 suffered by s of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintif se deed stands cancelled. dings, following issued were framed b ther of the plaintiffs is daughter of nt dated 13.05.1993 passed in Civil read with order dated 04.08.2006 t of Collector, Narnaul is illegal, ffs are owners in possession of the ? OPD iffs are liable to be stopped from ir own act and conduct? OPD s not within period of limitation? ernative plea the defendants have the suit land by virtue of adverse Nos.1 to 3, the Court of the Fir cessfully proved that Shanti Devi, wa Jakalia son of Thandu. The suit lan his father and the same was ancestr isting right in the suit property an transfer the same in any manner. Th ly held that Shanti Devi being daught share in the estate left by Jugal Kishor d by Lali Devi is not binding upon th laintiffs were declared to be owner 3 med by r of ivil 006 gal, the rom on? ave erse he First was uit land ncestral rty and er. The aughter Kishore. pon the wner in RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3131-2017 (O joint posses [10] the First In preferred a Appellate C Instance an as the cross [11] the Courts 03.07.198 and widow the Courts b of Jugal K estate left b in accordan prior to 20 applied. B owner to th of Jugal K Devi, wido Shyam Lal entitled to Shanti Dev jointly and [12] 017 (O&M) possession to the extent of 1/3 share in Aggrieved by the judgment an irst Instance, the LRs of defendant rred appeal. Appellants also filed llate Court affirmed the findings rec nce and dismissed the appeal preferred e cross-objections filed by the plaintiff Counsel for the appellants has Courts below. He contends that Ju .1989, leaving behind a son namely idow Lali Devi. Shanti Devi subseq ourts below have held the property to gal Kishore. Shyam Lal being copa e left by Jugal Kishore on his death on cordance with Section 6 of the Hindu S to 2005 amendment. Principle of ed. Both the coparceners, i.e. Jugal K r to the extent of ½ share in the coparc al Kishore that would devolve upo widow, Shyam Lal, son and Shan m Lal shall be entitled to 2/3 share, led to 1/6 share and Shanti Devi to t ti Devi on her death on 23.05.1995 and not to 1/3 share as held by the C I have heard counsel for the hare in the suit land. ent and decree passed by the Court o ndant No.1, i.e. the present appellant filed cross-objections. The Low gs recorded by the Court of the Fir eferred by the present appellants as we laintiffs. ts has assailed the findings recorded b hat Jugal Kishore @ Jugla died o mely Shyam Lal, daughter Shanti De subsequently died on 23.05.1995. Bo rty to be ancestral property in the hand coparcener had a birth right and th ath on 03.07.1989 has to be determine indu Succession Act, 1956 as it existe ple of notional partition needs to b ugal Kishore and Shyam Lal, who we coparcenary property, it is only ½ sha ve upon his Class-I LRs, namely La Shanti Devi daughter. Accordingl i.e. 1/2 plus 1/6, Lali Devi will b to the rest 1/6 share. Thus, LRs o 5 would succeed only to 1/6 sha the Courts below. or the parties and have carefully gon 4 ourt of pellants, Lower he First as well rded by died on nti Devi 5. Both e hands and the ermined existed s to be ho were ½ share Lali rdingly, will be LRs of /6 share lly gone RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3131-2017 (O through rec [13] appellants, Succession read as und “Sec stood havin copa survi in ac Prov speci class dece testa Act a Expl Hind prop prop whet Expl be co copa claim Secti acco 017 (O&M) gh records of the case. In order to appreciate the con llants, it will be apt to peruse Sectio ession Act, 1956 (as they existed prior as under:- Section 6 – Devolution of Interest stood prior to 2005 Amendment): When a male Hindu dies afte having at the time of his death coparcenary property, his interest survivorship upon the surviving mem in accordance with this Act: Provided that, if the deceased had le specified in Class I of the Schedule o class who claims through such fem deceased in the Mitakshara coparc testamentary or intestate succession Act and not by survivorship. Explanation 1: For the purposes Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall property that would have been allo property had taken place immediatel hether he was entitled to claim part Explanation 2: Nothing contained i be construed as enabling a person w coparcenary before the death of the claim on intestacy a share in the inte Section 8: General Rules of Succes The property of a male Hin according to the provisions of this Ch he contention raised by counsel for th Section 6 and Section 8 of the Hind d prior to 2005 Amendment). The sam erest in Coparcenary property - (as after the commencement of this Ac eath an interest in a Mitakshar est in the property shall devolve b members of the coparcenary and n ad left him surviving a female relativ ule or a male relative specified in th female relative, the interest of th parcenary property shall devolve b ssion, as the case may be, under th ses of this section, the interest of hall be deemed to be the share in th allotted to him if a partition of th iately before his death, irrespective partition or not. ed in the proviso to this section sha on who has separated himself from th f the deceased or any of his heirs interest referred to therein. ccession in the case of males Hindu dying intestate shall devolv is Chapter— 5 l for the e Hindu he same (as it is Act, shara lve by nd not elative that of the lve by er this t of a in the of the tive of shall om the eirs to evolve RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3131-2017 (O whereas Se coparcenary a male Hin after the c devolve, by and not in a surviving f relative spe interest of or intestate Section 6 is which a m heritage. T property’ that the pro the property [14] 017 (O&M) (a) firstly, upon the heirs, Class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heirs, being the relatives speci (c) thirdly, if there is no he upon the agnates of the deceas (d) lastly, if there is no agnat deceased. Section 6 deals with the dev eas Section 8 deals with the devolu rcenary property. Section 6 spells out le Hindu having interest in the Mitak the commencement of 1956 Act, hi lve, by survivorship, upon the surviv ot in accordance with 1956 Act. How ving female relative specified in Cla ive specified in that Class claiming est of deceased in coparcenary prope testate succession, as the case may b on 6 is ‘coparcenary property’. The s h a male Hindu acquires right by b age. The question whether the parti or not depends upon the facts of the property is a coparcenary property roperty is a coparcenary property. Accordingly, in order to invok eirs, being the relatives specified is no heir of Class I, then upon th pecified in Class II of the Schedule; o heir of any of the two classes, the ceased; and gnate, then upon the cognates of th he devolution of coparcenary proper devolution of all properties other tha out a positive mandate that whenev itakshara coparcenary property die ct, his interest in the property sha surviving members of the coparcenar . However, where the deceased leaves in Class I of the Schedule or a ma ming under such family relative, property shall devolve by testamentar may be. The sine qua non to invok The same connotes that the property t by birth has to be an unobstructe e particular property is a ‘coparcena acts of each case. The burden to prov operty rests upon a person asserting th invoke Section 6, it is incumbent upo 6 ied in on the ule; then of the property er than henever dies ty shall arcenary leaves a a male the mentary invoke perty in structed arcenary to prove ting that nt upon RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3131-2017 (O the appella property in Kishore su termed as [15] devolve up succession. the estate l claimed tha self acquire alone that d mode of de It has not coming in evidence to Thandu in stream of in [16] regarding t the hands o 1956 Act. Lal, daught that the Cou [17] be dismisse 017 (O&M) ppellants to first prove that the proper erty in the hands of Jugal Kishore. succeeded to the estate left by as coparcenary property. The property to be a coparc lve upon coparceners by way of su on. It has not come on record as to state left by Thandu. Rather in their ed that the property was not a coparc acquired property in the hands of Jug that determines the nature of property of devolvement. The date of death o s not come on record as to whether in the operation of Hindu Succe nce to prove that Jugal Kishore inhe in terms of Section 6 and not in m of inheritance was unobstructed. In view thereof, the plea rais ding the application of Section 6 cann ands of Jugal Kishore has to devolve t. The same shall devolve upon his daughter Shanti Devi and widow Lali D he Courts below held the plaintiffs ent Finding no merits in the prese smissed. property in question was a coparcen . Merely for the reason that Jug ft by Thandu, the property cannot b coparcenary property, the same mu of survivorship and not by way o rd as to how Jugal Kishore succeeded ir pleadings, the present appellan coparcenary property and the same wa Jugal Kishore. It is not the sourc roperty but the same also depends upo eath of Thandu has not come on recor ther “Thandu died before 1956 or aft uccession Act, 1956”. There is n inherited the property from his fath not in terms of Section 8 and that th ea raised by counsel for the appellan 6 cannot be accepted. The property evolve by operation of Section 6 of th his Class-1 heirs, i.e. his son Shya Lali Devi. It is in these circumstance ffs entitled to 1/3 share jointly. present appeal, the same is ordered 7 arcenary Jugal nnot be e must way of eeded to pellants me was source ds upon record. r after e is no is father that the pellants perty in 6 of the Shyam stances, dered to RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3131-2017 (O [18] disposed of 12.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma’ 017 (O&M) All miscellaneous pending ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable nding application(s), if any, stand (Pankaj Jain) Judge : Yes/No : Yes/No 8 stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.22 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document