Scope of Second Appeal Explained: P&H High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Findings, Upholds Daughter’s Inheritance Over Adverse Possession

Case Name: Gulzari Begum (through LRs) v. Liakat Ali Khan & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 07 April 2026

Citation: RSA-2646-1989

Bench: Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that daughters cannot be deprived of inheritance rights through mutations sanctioned without notice. A plea of adverse possession cannot co-exist with a claim of ownership, and mere long possession without proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession does not confer title.

Summary: The plaintiff sought declaration of ownership over her share in ancestral agricultural land, challenging mutation entries that had transferred the entire property in favour of defendants without notice.

The defendants resisted the claim on the basis of customary law excluding daughters from inheritance and alternatively pleaded adverse possession. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation and was not maintainable without seeking possession.

The Court found that the plea of custom excluding daughters was not proved. It noted that mutation entries were sanctioned without notice to the plaintiff and her sister, who were co-sharers and entitled to inheritance. The fact that all mutations were sanctioned on the same day raised serious doubt and indicated manipulation.

On adverse possession, the Court held that the defendants had taken contradictory pleas of ownership and adverse possession, which are legally incompatible. It reiterated that adverse possession requires strict proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession to the knowledge of the true owner, which was absent in the present case.

The Court further held that mere long possession or mutation entries do not amount to adverse possession, particularly among co-sharers, unless there is clear ouster.

On limitation, the Court clarified that no limitation applies to suits based on inheritance/title, and earlier contrary views had been overruled.

On maintainability, the Court held that in cases involving agricultural land, a suit for declaration with consequential injunction is maintainable, and relief of possession is not mandatory since partition lies within the jurisdiction of revenue authorities.

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, recognizing her inheritance rights in the property.