Unproved Revenue Excerpts Cannot Form Basis of Declaration of Title in Ancestral Property Dispute | Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Findings
Case Name: Chander Singh (Deceased) through LRs and Others v. Balbir and Others
Date of Judgment: 16 July 2026
Citation: RSA-3541-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although the plaintiffs successfully established their status as legal heirs of the common ancestor, they failed to prove that the suit property was the land allotted in lieu of the ancestral estate. An excerpt from the revenue record (Aks Shajra/Excerpt), unless duly proved in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, cannot constitute admissible evidence for establishing title. Mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with the requirement of proving its execution and authenticity. Consequently, the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Summary: The dispute concerned ancestral agricultural land originally owned by Ram Sahai, who died in 1906 leaving behind seven sons. The plaintiffs, descendants from one branch of the family, claimed that while mutations relating to Ram Sahai’s properties in two villages correctly reflected the rights of all legal heirs, the mutation concerning land situated in Village Kaliawas had been wrongly sanctioned in favour of only certain branches of the family. They therefore sought a declaration of co-ownership and consequential relief over more than 514 kanals of land allegedly representing the ancestral estate after successive settlements and consolidation proceedings.
The defendants opposed the suit on several grounds, including limitation, adverse possession, non-joinder of necessary parties and failure to establish that the present suit land corresponded to the estate originally owned by Ram Sahai. Although the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants challenged the concurrent findings in second appeal.
The High Court observed that the principal burden upon the plaintiffs was not merely to prove their lineage but also to establish, through cogent evidence, that the land described in the plaint was in fact allotted in lieu of Ram Sahai’s original holdings after settlement and consolidation operations. The plaintiffs relied primarily upon an excerpt prepared by a Patwari. However, the witness who prepared the excerpt admitted during cross-examination that he could neither read nor write Urdu, despite the original revenue records being in Urdu. The Court further held that under Chapter 9 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, such excerpts must not only be exhibited but must also be formally proved with reference to the original revenue records. Since these mandatory requirements were not fulfilled, the excerpt remained unproved.
Rejecting the contention that absence of objection at the time of exhibiting the document cured the defect, the Court reiterated the settled distinction between admissibility of a document and its proof. While the document could be admitted in evidence, it could not be relied upon unless duly proved. As there was no reliable evidence connecting the present suit property with the ancestral estate of Ram Sahai, the concurrent findings recorded by both courts below were held to be legally unsustainable.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed for failure to establish that the suit property represented the estate originally left by Ram Sahai.