Property Allotted in India Against Land Left in Pakistan Does Not Automatically Become Ancestral Coparcenary Property; Property Received Through Will Confers No Birthright on Son: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Hardev Singh (Deceased) Through LRs v. Jagir Singh and Others

Date of Judgment: 12 October 2026

Citation: RSA No. 1099 of 1995

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that property inherited by a Hindu male from his father does not automatically acquire the character of ancestral coparcenary property. Mere inheritance or existence of a joint Hindu family is insufficient to establish a right by birth. The coparcenary character of the property must be proved through cogent evidence. The Court reiterated that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property devolving upon a son by intestate succession is held in his individual capacity and does not become coparcenary property merely because he has children. Consequently, where property is held individually, its owner is competent to dispose of it through a Will.

Summary: The dispute arose when the plaintiff claimed a birthright in agricultural land allotted to his grandfather, Rattan Singh, in India in lieu of property left behind in Pakistan during Partition. The plaintiff contended that the original property had been inherited by Rattan Singh from his father and, therefore, retained its ancestral coparcenary character. He consequently challenged Rattan Singh’s testamentary disposition in favour of his sons.

The Trial Court partly accepted the plaintiff’s claim and declared the non-purchased property to be coparcenary property. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding the property to be individually owned.

Upholding the appellate findings, the High Court relied upon Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567, and distinguished between ancestral coparcenary property and property devolving under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Court observed that the original property had been purchased by Ram Ditta, Rattan Singh’s father, and the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite ancestral coparcenary character through evidence. The subsequent allotment of land in India in lieu of the property left in Pakistan did not, by itself, establish any coparcenary right. Accordingly, Rattan Singh was competent to bequeath the property through his Will, and the beneficiaries received it as their individual property.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the First Appellate Court’s judgment rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of ancestral coparcenary ownership. The Court affirmed the validity of the testamentary disposition and held that the plaintiff could not claim a birthright in the disputed property.