IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 124 RSA-4077-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:29.01.2026 Mast Ram and Others …..Appellants Vs. Diwan Chand and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.K. Dhanda, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellants–plainffs are before this Court assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit for declaraon with consequenal relief of permanent injuncon, though decreed by the Trial Court on 02.11.2019, was partly reversed. The First Appellate Court declined the relief of declaraon in favour of the plainffs and restricted the decree only to the extent that the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plainffs from the suit property except in due course of law. 2. A perusal of the record reveals that the suit property is a residenal house purchased by Naurata Ram vide registered sale deed dated 24.05.1982. Naurata Ram had five sons, namely, three plainffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plainffs instuted the suit asserng that a family se5lement took place in August, 1992, pursuant to which specified porons of the house fell to the share of the plainffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2, while a poron marked ‘KPNL’ remained with Naurata Ram. It was NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4077-2025 (O&M) -2- further pleaded that the property had been purchased by Naurata Ram from joint family funds and that the defendants were threatening to interfere in their possession on the strength of a registered gi; deed dated 08.03.2013 executed by Naurata Ram in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by asserng that Naurata Ram was the exclusive owner of the suit property, having purchased it from his own funds. The alleged family se5lement of August, 1992 was categorically denied. It was further pleaded that Naurata Ram had validly executed a registered gi; deed dated 08.03.2013 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that the plainffs were only permissive occupants/licensees in certain porons of the house. On these premises, dismissal of the suit was sought. 4. Upon framing of issues and appreciaon of evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit. 5. However, the learned First Appellate Court, on reappraisal of the enre evidence, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and held that: (i) the plainffs failed to establish that the suit property was joint family property; (ii) the alleged family se5lement was not proved; (iii) Naurata Ram was the exclusive owner of the suit property and had validly gi;ed the same to defendant Nos.1 and 2; and (iv) the plainffs were merely licensees in possession. Accordingly, the relief of declaraon was declined, though protecon from dispossession except in due course of law was granted. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the First Appellate Court has wrongly reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court by mis-appreciang the evidence on record. 7. A;er careful consideraon of the record, this Court finds no NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4077-2025 (O&M) -3- merit in the contenon. 8. It is an admi5ed posion that the suit property was purchased in the name of Naurata Ram vide registered sale deed dated 24.05.1982. The burden to prove that the property was purchased from joint family funds lay squarely upon the plainffs. Except for a vague admission that the family members were residing together and contribung towards household expenses, no cogent or reliable evidence was led to establish the existence of a joint family nucleus sufficient to acquire the property. Mere contribuon towards family expenses does not lead to the inference that the property was purchased from joint family funds. 9. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly noced that Naurata Ram had rered from service in the year 1981 and that the property was purchased in 1982, plausibly from his reral benefits. The finding that the property was self-acquired is a pure finding of fact based upon proper appreciaon of evidence and calls for no interference. 10. As regards the alleged family se5lement of August, 1992, it is well se5led that a family se5lement must be proved by cogent evidence showing consensus ad idem and its implementaon. In the present case, there is no documentary or reliable oral evidence to substanate the plea of family se5lement. The plainffs, therefore, failed to establish any right or tle on the basis of such an alleged se5lement. 11. The learned First Appellate Court has further correctly held that Naurata Ram, being the exclusive owner of the suit property, was fully competent to execute the registered gi; deed dated 08.03.2013 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The execuon and validity of the said gi; deed were not successfully impeached by the plainffs. Consequently, defendant Nos.1 and 2 derived valid tle to the suit property. 12. The finding that the plainffs were in possession merely as licensees is also borne out from the record. The First Appellate Court has, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4077-2025 (O&M) -4- therefore, rightly protected their possession to the limited extent that they cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law, which sufficiently safeguards their possessory rights. 13. The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are findings of fact based on proper appreciaon of evidence and do not suffer from perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence. No substanal queson of law arises for consideraon. 14. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE January 29, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document