Property Allotted in India in Lieu of Ancestral Land Left in Pakistan Retains Coparcenary Character; Punjab & Haryana High Court Invalidates Gift Deed by Karta

Case Name: Chakkan Lal (Since Deceased) Through LRs v. Ram Pyari @ Tillo (Since Deceased) Through LRs and Others

Date of Judgment: 19 May 2026

Citation: RSA-1893-1989 and connected matters

Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that rehabilitation property allotted in India in lieu of ancestral property abandoned in Pakistan during Partition retains its ancestral and coparcenary character. The Court further held that a Karta cannot gift away the entire coparcenary estate to selected sons excluding another coparcener without legal necessity or consent. Consequently, the gift deed and subsequent sale deeds executed on its basis were declared illegal and void.

Summary: The appeals arose from concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit seeking possession or joint possession of land situated at Village Jhamwas, District Nuh, on the ground that the property was not coparcenary in nature.

The plaintiff contended that the suit property had been allotted to Hem Raj, father of the parties, in lieu of ancestral property left behind in District Dera Ghazi Khan, West Pakistan during Partition. According to the plaintiff, the property retained its ancestral and coparcenary character and therefore Hem Raj, acting as Karta, could not have gifted away the entire property in favour of selected sons to the exclusion of the plaintiff.

The defendants opposed the suit by asserting that the property was self-acquired property of Hem Raj and further pleaded that the parties were governed by agricultural Aroda custom under which sons did not acquire rights by birth in the father’s property. The defendants also claimed protection as bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The High Court found that both the courts below had failed to appreciate the true legal nature of rehabilitation property allotted in India in substitution of ancestral holdings left in Pakistan. The Court examined rehabilitation records, sanad allotments, mutations and earlier inter partes judgments which clearly demonstrated that the allotment at Village Jhamwas was directly traceable to ancestral property abandoned during Partition.

Significantly, the Court noted that an earlier judgment between the same parties concerning another rehabilitation property had already attained finality holding that such rehabilitation property retained coparcenary character. The Court observed that the defendants could not be permitted to adopt contradictory stands regarding properties arising from the same rehabilitation pool.

Relying upon Maya Ram v. Satnam Singh, the Court reiterated that property allotted in India in lieu of ancestral property abandoned in Pakistan partakes the same ancestral character as the original property. The Court held that mere conferment of ownership rights through rehabilitation allotment or sanad does not convert ancestral property into self-acquired property.

The High Court further rejected the plea of custom raised by the defendants holding that no cogent evidence had been led to establish exclusion of ordinary Hindu law principles. The burden to prove such custom lay upon the defendants and remained undischarged.

The Court also held that the gift deed dated 03.08.1967 executed by Hem Raj in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 was wholly unsustainable as a Karta cannot alienate the entire coparcenary property in favour of selected coparceners without legal necessity or consent of other coparceners. Reliance was placed upon Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma wherein the Supreme Court held that a coparcener cannot gift away his undivided interest in coparcenary property except for limited recognised purposes.

Rejecting the plea of protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court observed that transferees cannot acquire a better title than the transferor. Since the foundational gift deed itself was void, the subsequent purchasers acquired no valid title.

Decision: The High Court allowed all the Regular Second Appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and declared the gift deed dated 03.08.1967 along with consequential sale deeds illegal, void and not binding upon the coparcenary rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was held entitled to possession or in the alternative joint possession of the suit property.