Unchallenged Testimony Can’t Be Ignored: P&H High Court Restores Daughter’s Inheritance Right but Denies Possession Without Partition

Case Name: Karnail Kaur (Deceased) through LRs v. Jit Singh & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026

Citation: RSA-686-1997

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that unchallenged testimony in cross-examination must be treated as admitted, and findings ignoring such evidence amount to misreading of record. The Court further held that a co-owner cannot claim exclusive possession of joint property without seeking partition, even if inheritance is established.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff claiming inheritance over agricultural land as the daughter of Joginder Singh. The Trial Court decreed the suit in her favour; however, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings, holding that she failed to prove her parentage and that the suit was barred by limitation.

Before the High Court, the central issue was whether the plaintiff had successfully established that she was the daughter of Joginder Singh. The plaintiff relied on a birth certificate reflecting the name “Kako” and her own testimony stating that she was known by that name during childhood.

The High Court noted that this crucial assertion was never challenged in cross-examination. Applying settled principles of evidence, the Court held that unchallenged testimony must be deemed admitted. It further observed that the First Appellate Court had ignored material portions of evidence, including admissions emerging from cross-examination of witnesses.

On this basis, the Court held that the plaintiff had successfully proved her status as the daughter of Joginder Singh and was thus entitled to inherit his estate.

On the issue of limitation, the Court clarified that a suit for possession based on inheritance is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act and is not barred unless adverse possession is established. The finding of the First Appellate Court on limitation was therefore set aside.

However, the Court held that the property remained joint and unpartitioned. As a co-owner, the plaintiff could not claim exclusive possession of a specific portion without seeking partition, especially where agricultural land falls within the jurisdiction of revenue authorities.

Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, holding the plaintiff to be a co-owner to the extent of one-half share in the suit property. The relief of possession was denied, with liberty granted to seek partition before the competent authority.