IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 120 RSA-2312-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:17.02.2026 Balwinder Kaur @ Preeto and Another …..Appellants Vs. Pippal Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by two of the defendants assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plain'ffs—legal heirs of Jindo, has been partly decreed, and the appeal preferred by the present appellants has been dismissed by the learned Addi'onal District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 16.03.2023 2. The dispute pertains to the estate of Ujagar Singh, who admi4edly expired on 10.08.1969. It is not in controversy that he was owner in possession of the suit land. He had four daughters, namely Jindo, Kirpal Kaur, Harnam Kaur and Pritam Kaur. Pritam Kaur had pre-deceased him issue-less. Consequently, upon his death, he was survived by three daughters—Jindo, Kirpal Kaur and Harnam Kaur. 3. The plain'ffs are the legal heirs of Jindo. The defendants and proforma defendants are the legal heirs of Kirpal Kaur and Harnam Kaur. 4. The case set up by the plain'ffs was that Ujagar Singh died intestate and, therefore, his estate devolved by natural succession equally upon his three surviving daughters. However, muta'on of inheritance was NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2312-2023 (O&M) -2- sanc'oned exclusively in favour of Kirpal Kaur. Therea<er, Kirpal Kaur executed a General Power of A4orney in favour of Balkar Singh, who, on 24.07.2008, executed sale deeds in favour of the present appellants. The plain'ffs challenged the muta'on and the sale deeds to the extent they affected their share. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants, who pleaded that Kirpal Kaur had been residing with and serving Ujagar Singh and, therefore, the muta'on was rightly sanc'oned in her favour. It was further pleaded that the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value, that the suit was barred by limita'on and that Kirpal Kaur had perfected 'tle by adverse possession. Significantly, no Will of Ujagar Singh was pleaded or proved. 6. Upon apprecia'on of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding that Ujagar Singh died intestate. It was further held that his estate devolved by natural succession upon his three daughters in equal shares. Consequently, Kirpal Kaur was owner only to the extent of 1/3rd share and could not have conveyed 'tle beyond that share. The sale deeds dated 24.07.2008 were thus set aside to the extent they affected the shares of the other co-sharers. The suit was accordingly partly decreed. 7. The appellants preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned Addi'onal District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 16.03.2023 8. The first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court, holding that inheritance had opened by natural succession; that limita'on did not defeat the substan've right flowing from inheritance; that adverse possession against co-sharers was neither pleaded nor proved in accordance with law; and that the plain'ffs, being non-executants of the sale deeds, were not required to affix ad valorem court fee. 9. Assailing the concurrent findings before this Court, learned NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2312-2023 (O&M) -3- counsel for the appellants has primarily contended that the plain'ffs failed to establish that Jindo was the daughter of Ujagar Singh and that the suit was barred by limita'on. It has also been reiterated that the appellants are bona fide purchasers. 10. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 11. A specific finding was recorded by the trial Court that Jindo was the daughter of Ujagar Singh. That finding, based on apprecia'on of evidence, was not successfully assailed before the first Appellate Court. The same stands affirmed. The said finding is purely factual in nature. No perversity, misreading of evidence or non-considera'on of material evidence has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in second appeal. 12. It is also undisputed that Ujagar Singh died intestate. In the absence of any testamentary disposi'on, succession opened in favour of his three surviving daughters in equal shares. The legal posi'on in this regard is unambiguous. A co-sharer cannot convey be4er 'tle than he or she possesses. Kirpal Kaur, therefore, could validly transfer only her undivided 1/3rd share. The sale deeds could not operate beyond that extent. 13. The plea of limita'on has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. Muta'on entries neither create nor ex'nguish 'tle. A co-sharer’s right to claim his or her share in joint property is a recurring and con'nuing right unless specifically ex'nguished in accordance with law. The finding recorded by the first Appellate Court on this aspect is legally sound. 14. The plea of adverse possession is equally devoid of substance. Possession of one co-sharer is presumed to be on behalf of all co-sharers unless clear and unequivocal evidence of hos'le asser'on and ouster is established. No such evidence has been brought on record. Mere long NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2312-2023 (O&M) -4- possession does not ripen into adverse possession against co-owners. 15. Even the plea of bona fide purchase cannot advance the appellants’ case beyond the share lawfully held by the vendor. A purchaser steps into the shoes of the vendor and cannot acquire 'tle beyond what the vendor was competent to convey. 16. It is well se4led that in exercise of jurisdic'on under Sec'on 100 CPC, this Court does not re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substan'al ques'on of law arises. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper apprecia'on of evidence and se4led principles of succession law. No substan'al ques'on of law has been shown to arise. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 18. The present Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica'ons, if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 17, 2026 Nee'ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document