IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 124 RSA-1013-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision.:21.07.2026 Mohan Devi and Others …..Appellants Vs. Des Raj and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-4554-C-2021: This is an applicaon under Secon 151 CPC to condone the delay of 160 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of Ashwani Gaur, Advocate delay of 160 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plainffs, assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby their suit for declaraon with consequenal relief of permanent injuncon was dismissed, as also the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned First Appellate Court affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. Thus, the appellants seek interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. 2. The dispute pertains to the property owned by defendant No.1, Des Raj. The appellants are his daughters, whereas defendant No.2 is his son. The case set up by the plainffs is that the suit property is ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1 and, therefore, he has no right to alienate the same in favour of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.07.23 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1013-2021 (O&M) defendant No.2 by execung a Will, relinquishment deed or any other mode of transfer. On the apprehension that defendant No.1 intended to transfer the property exclusively in favour of defendant No.2, the present suit was instuted seeking a declaraon regarding the nature of the property and a consequenal decree of permanent injuncon restraining such alienaon. 3. The defendants contested the suit by specifically pleading that the suit property was the self-acquired property of defendant No.1, who had absolute rights to deal with the same in any manner permissible under law. 4. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the pares, both the Courts below concurrently returned a finding that the suit property was not ancestral. It has been found that defendant No.1 had purchased the property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19.11.1953, wherea;er Mutaon No.1048 (Ex.P-2) was duly sanconed in his favour and the corresponding entries were incorporated in the revenue record. No evidence was produced by the plainffs to establish that the property had devolved upon defendant No.1 by succession from his paternal ancestors so as to acquire the character of ancestral/coparcenary property under Hindu law. 5. This Court finds no infirmity in the aforesaid concurrent findings. A property purchased by an individual through a registered sale deed from his own vendor is, in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, his self-acquired property. Merely describing the property as "ancestral" in the plaint does not confer such character upon it. The burden to establish that the property was ancestral squarely rested upon the plainffs, which burden they have failed to discharge. 6. Once the property is held to be the self-acquired property of defendant No.1, the legal consequences are well seBled. During his lifeme, the owner of self-acquired property enjoys absolute rights of ownership and is fully competent to transfer, alienate, gi;, bequeath or otherwise deal with the property according to his own volion. His children do not acquire any vested or Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.07.23 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1013-2021 (O&M) birthright in such property during his lifeme and cannot seek an injuncon restraining him from exercising his lawful rights as an absolute owner merely on the basis of a future or conngent expectaon of succession. 7. It is also noteworthy that the suit itself was founded merely on an apprehension that defendant No.1 might execute a Will or some other instrument in favour of defendant No.2. No completed act of alienaon had taken place on the date of instuon of the suit. In the absence of any subsisng legal right in favour of the plainffs, such an apprehension could not furnish a valid cause of acon to restrain the true owner from dealing with his self-acquired property. 8. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of fact based upon appreciaon of oral and documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has been unable to demonstrate that the said findings suffer from perversity, are based on misreading of evidence or involve any substanal queson of law warranng interference under Secon 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is well seBled that this Court, while exercising jurisdicon under Secon 100 CPC, does not reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. 9. Consequently, no substanal queson of law arises for consideraon in the present appeal. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below call for no interference. 10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE July 21, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.07.23 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document