RSA-3288-2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3288-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Om Parkash (Now deceased) through his LRs and others ...Appellants Versus Smt. Maya and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plain3ffs are in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments & decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, and the learned Addi3onal District Judge, Sonepat, whereby their suit for declara3on with consequen3al relief of permanent injunc3on has been dismissed. 2. The plain3ffs ins3tuted the suit claiming that the property measuring 388.4 square yards situated within the abadi of village Aterna, Tehsil and District Sonepat, was ancestral Hindu Joint Family property inherited from their father Tekan. On that premise, they sought a declara3on that they alone were owners in possession of the suit property and that defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are their sisters, had no right, 3tle or interest therein nor any authority to alienate the same in favour of defendant No.3. 3. The defendants contested the suit by pleading that the suit property was the self-acquired property of late Tekan, who had executed a YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3288-2023 (O&M) [2] registered Will dated 06.11.1992 in favour of his grand-children Kuldeep and Varsha. It was further pleaded that aBer the death of Kuldeep, the property devolved upon Maya and Varsha, who were competent to execute the agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.3. 4. ABer apprecia3ng the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court, on an independent re- appraisal of the en3re evidence, affirmed the findings. Aggrieved thereby, the plain3ffs have filed the present Regular Second Appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having examined the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 6. The en3re edifice of the plain3ffs' case rests upon the asser3on that the suit property is ancestral/coparcenary property. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plain3ffs have failed to establish this founda3onal fact. 7. The law is well seIled that there is no presump3on that property owned by a person is ancestral or coparcenary property. The burden lies en3rely upon the party asser3ng such character to establish, by cogent documentary evidence, that the property devolved by inheritance through the male line from a common ancestor and retained its ancestral character throughout. Mere inheritance from one's father is not sufficient to cons3tute ancestral property in law. 8. In the present case, except for bald oral asser3ons, the plain3ffs did not produce any documentary evidence showing the source of acquisi3on of the property or its devolu3on through successive male ancestors. No revenue record, muta3on entries, pedigree table, old jamabandis, intkhab, khatoni ishtemal, naksha haqdarwar or any other YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3288-2023 (O&M) [3] cogent record was produced to establish that the property descended by inheritance from a common ancestor. Both the Courts below, therefore, rightly held that the plain3ffs failed to discharge the burden cast upon them. 9. The Trial Court rightly relied upon the principles no3ced by this Court in Tara Devi v. Raunak Singh, 2013 (5) RCR (Civil) 59, that the person asser3ng a property to be ancestral must affirma3vely establish such character by sa3sfactory evidence. 10. Reference may also be made to Uam v. Saubhag Singh, (2016) 4 SCC 68, wherein the Supreme Court explained the concept of coparcenary property under Hindu law and reiterated that the mere fact that property belonged to the father does not automa3cally clothe it with the character of coparcenary property so as to confer birth rights upon descendants. The person asser3ng such status must establish the necessary legal founda3on by acceptable evidence. 11. Therefore, the concurrent finding recorded on this aspect is based upon proper apprecia3on of evidence and the legal posi3on and so, calls for no interference. 12. Even otherwise, the plain3ffs have failed to establish their possession over the suit property. PW-1 himself admiIed during cross- examina3on that all the three brothers had constructed separate residen3al houses in the fields aBer purchasing land in the year 1962 and were residing separately. PW-2 further admiIed that both defendant Nos.1 and 2 had been residing in the house situated in the village abadi for the last about 15- 20 years and that the plain3ffs themselves were residing at a distance of about five to seven acres from the disputed property. These admissions completely demolish the pleaded case that the plain3ffs were in exclusive YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3288-2023 (O&M) [4] possession of the suit property. 13. The electricity record produced through PW-3 was also rightly discarded by both the Courts below. The witness categorically admiIed that neither the site plan nor any record connec3ng the electricity connec3on with the disputed property was available in the departmental record. Likewise, the site plan relied upon by the plain3ffs remained unproved since its author was never examined. 14. Thus, neither 3tle nor possession stood established. 15. Besides above, the defendants consistently pleaded the existence of a registered Will dated 06.11.1992 executed by late Tekan in favour of Kuldeep and Varsha. The First Appellate Court has also no3ced that the li3ga3on rela3ng to the said Will ul3mately culminated before this Court in RSA No.3565 of 2005 decided on 30.11.2018. However, irrespec3ve of the defence set up by the defendants, it was incumbent upon the plain3ffs to independently establish their own 3tle. 16. It is trite that a plain3ff seeking declara3on must succeed on the strength of his own 3tle and not on the weakness of the defence. Once the plain3ffs failed to establish either the ancestral nature of the property or their own 3tle and possession, dismissal of the suit necessarily followed. 17. The First Appellate Court has also no3ced that the plain3ffs did not disclose all material facts regarding the previous li3ga3on concerning the Will and the rights claimed thereunder. The equitable relief of injunc3on is discre3onary and can be denied, where the plain3ff suppresses material facts or fails to approach the Court with complete candour. The reliance placed by the Courts below upon the principles laid down in Harinder Singh v. Joginder Singh Bia, 2010 (7) RCR 1413; and Parmeshwari v. Kauri 1986 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3288-2023 (O&M) [5] PLJ 46 cannot be faulted. 18. Most importantly, the present appeal arises from concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below aBer apprecia3on of oral and documentary evidence. 19. The scope of interference under Sec3on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a substan3al ques3on of law arises only when the findings recorded by the Courts below are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, arrived at by ignoring material evidence or by applying an incorrect legal principle. Merely because another view on facts is possible does not jus3fy interference in second appeal. 20. Similarly, in Narayanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, the Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in exercise of jurisdic3on under Sec3on 100 CPC merely because another conclusion is possible. Interference is permissible only where the concurrent findings suffer from perversity or are contrary to seIled principles of law. 21. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince this court that any material evidence has been ignored by either of the Courts below, or that the findings recorded are based upon misreading of evidence or suffer from perversity. On the contrary, the concurrent findings are fully supported by the admissions made by the plain3ffs' own witnesses and the complete absence of documentary evidence establishing the ancestral character of the suit property. 22. This Court, therefore, finds no legal infirmity in the judgments YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3288-2023 (O&M) [6] and decrees passed by the Courts below. No substan3al ques3on of law, much less one requiring determina3on by this Court under Sec3on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises for considera3on. 23. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applica3on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document