Father’s Failed Suit Does Not Extinguish Son’s Independent Coparcenary Right to Challenge Alienation: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Makhan Singh (since deceased) through LRs v. Piara Singh and others

Date of Judgment: 30 March 2026

Citation: RSA No. 1925 of 1995

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a coparcener acquires an independent right by birth in ancestral coparcenary property, and such right to challenge an alienation made by the Karta without legal necessity is personal and cannot be defeated merely because the coparcener’s father had earlier unsuccessfully challenged the same alienation. The Court further held that unless a custom derogating from Mitakshara Hindu law is strictly proved, the parties remain governed by Hindu law, under which the Karta’s power to alienate ancestral property is restricted to cases of legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or consent of the coparceners.

Summary: The appeal arose from a suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the agricultural land and residential house in dispute constituted ancestral coparcenary property and that the sale deeds executed by the Karta in favour of third parties were not binding upon his share. The Trial Court decreed the suit after holding that the parties were governed by Mitakshara Hindu law, the property was ancestral in nature, and the defendants had failed to establish any legal necessity justifying the alienations.

The First Appellate Court reversed the decree by holding that the parties, being Jat Sikhs of an agricultural tribe, were governed by customary law which permitted unrestricted alienation of ancestral property. It further held that the suit was barred by principles akin to constructive res judicata because the plaintiff’s father had earlier challenged the same sale deeds and had failed up to the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court found that the defendants had failed to strictly prove the existence of any custom overriding Mitakshara Hindu law. The Court observed that after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, customs inconsistent with Hindu law cannot be presumed and must be established through cogent evidence. Since no such proof existed, the parties continued to be governed by Mitakshara Hindu law.

The Court further held that every coparcener acquires an interest in ancestral property by birth and possesses an independent right to challenge alienations made without legal necessity. Such right is personal and is not derived through the father. Consequently, the earlier litigation instituted by the plaintiff’s father neither operated as res judicata nor extinguished the plaintiff’s independent cause of action. The Court also found that the purchasers had failed to prove legal necessity or bona fide enquiry before the transactions, rendering the alienations not binding on the plaintiff’s share.

Decision: The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, and restored the decree of the Trial Court. It held that the defendants had failed to prove any custom permitting unrestricted alienation of ancestral property and had also failed to establish legal necessity for the impugned sale deeds. The Court further ruled that the plaintiff’s independent coparcenary right by birth could not be defeated on the ground that his father had previously failed in similar litigation, as the doctrine of res judicata was inapplicable in the facts of the case.