IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 225 RSA-4004-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Nirmala and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Sunita Devi and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr.Rohit Rana, Advocate, for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees, whereby the suit instituted by appellants-plaintiffs seeking declaration that sale deed dated 29.04.2014 executed by Balkar Singh in favour of respondents-defendants is illegal, null and void and not binding upon their alleged coparcenary rights, has been dismissed on 11.07.2016, which came to be affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court on 07.02.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Courts below have committed a serious error in holding that the suit property was not ancestral. It is argued that the property had descended from the common ancestor and, after the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, daughters also became coparceners. It is further argued that the sale deed was obtained by practising fraud upon Balkar Singh, who was an illiterate person addicted to liquor, and that no legal necessity existed for alienation of the property. It is also submitted that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed was wholly inadequate and no consideration was actually paid. According to learned counsel, both the Courts have misread the documentary evidence including the consolidation record and mutations. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4004-2023 2026:PHHC: 094156 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after examining the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 4. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC is confined only to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible. Interference is justified only where such findings are shown to be perverse, based upon no evidence, or founded upon a patent misapplication of law. 5. The principal foundation of the suit was that the property inherited by Balkar Singh from his father continued to be ancestral/coparcenary property in his hands. The burden to establish such plea squarely rested upon the plaintiffs. 6. The Courts below have concurrently recorded that except for the mutation entries and a part of the consolidation record, no evidence was produced to establish the complete lineage of inheritance or to prove that the property had continuously descended from a common ancestor without interruption so as to retain the character of coparcenary property. The relevant revenue record of previous generations, inheritance mutations and corresponding jamabandis were admittedly not produced. These findings are pure findings of fact based upon appreciation of evidence and cannot be re- opened in second appeal merely because another inference is sought to be drawn. 7. The First Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204, holding that property inherited by a male Hindu after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ordinarily devolves upon him in his individual capacity and does not automatically become coparcenary property in which his children acquire birth rights. 8. The subsequent judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, undoubtedly recognizes daughters as coparceners; however, it does not dispense with the foundational requirement that the property VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4004-2023 2026:PHHC: 094156 itself must first be proved to be coparcenary property. The amendment enlarges the class of coparceners but does not convert every inherited property into coparcenary property. Therefore, unless the existence of coparcenary property is first established, Section 6 of the Act does not advance the plaintiffs' case. 9. Equally significant is the complete absence of pleadings regarding existence of a Hindu Undivided Family or any ancestral nucleus. A vague assertion that the property was "ancestral" is legally insufficient. In civil litigation, rights flowing from coparcenary status cannot be presumed. Necessary foundational facts constituting such relationship and the character of the property must be specifically pleaded and thereafter proved by cogent evidence. The plaintiffs have failed on both counts. 10. The challenge to the sale deed on the ground of fraud is equally devoid of merit. Fraud is required to be pleaded with complete particulars in terms of Order VI Rule 4 CPC and proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Bald allegations that Balkar Singh had been intoxicated or misled into believing that papers related to old-age pension cannot displace the statutory presumption attached to a registered document. 11. The sale deed was executed before the competent Sub-Registrar after compliance with the statutory requirements under the Registration Act. A registered sale deed carries a presumption of due execution. Such presumption is rebuttable, but only by strong and reliable evidence. No official from the office of the Sub-Registrar, no attesting witness, no scribe, nor any independent witness was examined to establish that Balkar Singh lacked understanding of the transaction or that the statutory formalities were not complied with. 12. It is further noteworthy that Balkar Singh remained alive even after execution and registration of the sale deed. Despite having the opportunity, he never instituted any independent proceedings seeking cancellation of the sale deed. This conduct constitutes a relevant circumstance while appreciating the allegation of fraud. Although his written VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4004-2023 2026:PHHC: 094156 statement supported the plaintiffs, the same could not by itself dislodge the evidentiary value of a registered conveyance executed by him. 13. The argument regarding inadequacy or non-payment of consideration also deserves rejection. It is a settled proposition that mere inadequacy of consideration does not invalidate a sale. Likewise, non- payment of the entire consideration, by itself, does not render a duly executed registered sale deed void. At the highest, it may give rise to an independent claim by the vendor for recovery of unpaid consideration, but cannot invalidate the conveyance itself unless vitiating circumstances like fraud, coercion or incapacity are independently proved. 14. The findings regarding possession also do not call for interference. The sale deed specifically recites delivery of possession. Except for oral assertions, no documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiffs to establish their continuing possession. Both Courts have concurrently appreciated the evidence and returned findings against the plaintiffs. Such findings cannot be re-appreciated in second appeal. 15. None of the findings recorded by the Courts below have been shown to be either perverse or based upon inadmissible evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has essentially sought re-appreciation of the entire evidence, which is impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. 16. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit property retained the character of coparcenary property; the statutory presumption attached to the registered sale deed remains unrebutted; allegations of fraud were neither pleaded nor proved in the manner known to law; no legal infirmity exists in the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the Courts below; and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 17. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are upheld. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4004-2023 2026:PHHC: 094156 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 10.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.10 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document