IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 133 RSA-3152-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 07.04.2026 Kumari Indra @ Indra and another &..Appellants Vs. Sona Ram and another .&.Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant3plain"û assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal ûled against the judgment & decree dated 28.09.2021 passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed and the ûndings recorded by the trial Court were aûrmed. 2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudica"on of the present appeal, are that the appellant3plain"û ins"tuted a suit for declara"on, possession and permanent injunc"on with the averment that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary in nature. It was pleaded that the plain"û, being the granddaughter of defendant No.1, had acquired a coparcenary right in the suit property by virtue of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. It was further alleged that defendant No.1, without any legal necessity and without having any exclusive right, executed a release deed dated 23.07.2015 in favour of defendant No.2, which was illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3152-2025 (O&M) plain"û. 3. The defendants contested the suit by denying that the suit property was ancestral. It was asserted that the property was self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and had devolved upon him through a registered Will executed by his predecessor. It was thus pleaded that defendant No.1 was absolute owner in possession of the suit property and was fully competent to execute the release deed in favour of defendant No.2. The claim of the plain"û was, therefore, stated to be devoid of merit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and par"es led evidence. Upon apprecia"on of the en"re evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plain"û had failed to prove that the suit property was ancestral or coparcenary in nature. The learned First Appellate Court, on re-apprecia"on of the evidence, concurred with the ûndings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record. It has been argued that the suit property ought to have been treated as ancestral and that defendant No.1 had no authority to execute the release deed in favour of defendant No.2. It is further submi>ed that the ûndings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. 7. At the outset, it may be no"ced that the scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal is limited. This Court can interfere only when a substan"al ques"on of law arises. Concurrent ûndings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be disturbed unless it is shown that the same are perverse, based on misreading of evidence or suûer from a patent illegality. Page No. 2 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3152-2025 (O&M) 8. In the present case, the en"re claim of the plain"û hinges upon the asser"on that the suit property is ancestral and coparcenary in nature. However, both the Courts below have, on the basis of documentary evidence, par"cularly the revenue record and muta"on entries, recorded a categorical ûnding that the property devolved upon defendant No.1 by virtue of a registered Will and not by way of inheritance. 9. It is well se>led that property inherited through a Will does not assume the character of ancestral property. In order to establish a property as ancestral, it must be shown that the same has descended through four genera"ons by inheritance. In the present case, the plain"û has failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish such devolu"on. 10. The oral evidence led by the plain"û also does not advance her case. The tes"mony of PW1 itself reûects lack of knowledge regarding the lineage and the nature of the property. Similarly, PW2 has admi>ed ignorance regarding the details of the suit property and revenue record. Thus, the Courts below have rightly held that the plain"û has failed to discharge the burden of proving the ancestral nature of the property. 11. Once it is held that the suit property is not ancestral but self- acquired in the hands of defendant No.1, the necessary corollary is that defendant No.1 had every right to deal with the property in the manner he deemed ût. Consequently, the execu"on of the release deed dated 23.07.2015 in favour of defendant No.2 cannot be said to be illegal or beyond his competence. 12. The ûndings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper apprecia"on of evidence and correct applica"on of law. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out in the said ûndings. 13. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in an earlier round of li"ga"on between the par"es, an order Page No. 3 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3152-2025 (O&M) of stay restraining aliena"on of the suit property was opera"ng, and despite the said restraint, defendant No.1 proceeded to execute the relinquishment/release deed dated 23.07.2015 in favour of defendant No.2. On this premise, it is argued that the very execu"on of the said deed is illegal and liable to be set aside. 14. The aforesaid conten"on, though a>rac"ve at ûrst blush, does not advance the case of the appellant. 15. Firstly, it is not disputed that the earlier suit, in which the alleged interim order of stay was granted, came to be dismissed in the year 2016. Once the said suit itself stood dismissed, the interim order passed therein automa"cally lapsed and ceased to have any independent existence. It is a se>led proposi"on of law that an interim order is always co-terminus with the ûnal proceedings and merges with the ûnal adjudica"on. Consequently, aCer dismissal of the earlier suit, no right can be claimed on the basis of such interim protec"on. 16. Secondly, even otherwise, any alleged viola"on of an interim injunc"on order does not ipso facto render a transfer void or non est in the eyes of law. The remedy, if any, available to the aggrieved party is to ini"ate appropriate proceedings for disobedience or contempt of the order of injunc"on. Such viola"on, by itself, does not invalidate the transac"on, par"cularly when the execu"ng party is otherwise competent to deal with the property. 17. Thirdly, in the present case, both the Courts below have concurrently held, on the basis of cogent evidence, that the suit property is not ancestral but self-acquired property in the hands of defendant No.1. Once defendant No.1 is held to be absolute owner, his competence to execute the relinquishment deed cannot be curtailed merely on account of an interim order passed in a separate proceeding, especially when such Page No. 4 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3152-2025 (O&M) proceeding itself has culminated in dismissal. 18. Thus, the conten"on raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding alleged viola"on of the stay order is devoid of merit and does not create any legal inûrmity in the execu"on of the relinquishment deed. 19. No substan"al ques"on of law arises for considera"on in the present appeal. 20. Resultantly, the present Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are aûrmed. 21. Pending applica"ons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 07, 2026 Nee"ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 5 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document