The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove renunciation and the performance of necessary ceremonies to establish civil death and divest a person of their property rights.

Kuldip Singh, J.

1. The plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.12.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 36-S/13 of 1999 dismissing the appeal of the appellants. The parties are referred in the same manner as in the trial Court.

2. The facts, in brief, are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that mutation No. 343 dated 26.8.1994 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 have become owners of share relinquished in favour of their predecessor by Hakim before 1960, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant not to interfere in the property falling in the share of plaintiffs.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that parties have joint landed property in village Kuranwala, Tehsil Kasauli comprised in Khata No. 12, Khatauni No. 13 to 18, Kita 66 measuring 137 Bighas 10 Biswas and Khata No. 33 Khatauni No. 112 and 113 Kitas 14 measuring 173 Bighas 6 Eiswas Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. Tholu was the common ancestor of the parties. Surat Ram, son of Tholu, had 6/32 share in the aforesaid property which he inherited from his father. Surat Ram had three sons, namely; Jainti, Hakim and Bogalia, who succeeded to his share after his death in equal shares. The plaintiff No. 3 succeeded to the share of Kirat Ram after his death.

4. Hakim was of religious mind. He became sadhu and left the village in late 50's, he relinquished his 1/3rd share in equal share to his brothers, namely, Jainti and Bogalia. He retained right over a small portion of joint property for constructing a Mandir. The plaintiffs are in continuous uninterrupted possession as owner of their share.

5. The defendant produced some forged documents before Tehsildar and got mutation No. 343 dated 26.8.1994 attested in his favour regarding the share of Hakim. The mutation No. 343 was attested illegally behind the back of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and it does not affect the legal rights of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 in any manner. The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 through their predecessor, have become owners of the share of Hakim which he relinquished before 1960 in favour of Jainti and Bogalia.

6. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiffs by filing a written statement in which he took preliminary objections of limitation, collusion of plaintiffs inter-se to defeat the right of defendant, lack of cause of action, estoppel, suppression of material facts, maintainability on the ground that plaintiffs have taken contradictory and conflicting pleas, mis-joinder of parties. On merits, the defendant has pleaded that land had already been partitioned on the spot. Plaintiff No. 3 succeeded Kirat Ram being his widow, Surat Ram was succeeded by his sons, namely, Jainti, Hakim and Bogalia, plaintiffs 1 and 2 succeeded the share of Jainti. Hakim was a religious minded person who became saint and joined some sect of Sadhus. Hakim was not having cordial relations with his brother Jainti and his family members. Hakim was living with defendant and whenever Hakim used to visit his village he stayed in Kutiya (small house) constructed by defendant for him and only defendant used to look after and serve him. Hakim never relinquished his share in favour of his brothers. The mutation No. 343 is legal and was rightly attested in favour of defendant being the surviving brother of Hakim. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs.

7. The trial Court held that mutation No. 343 dated 26.8.1994 was rightly attested, Hakim did not relinquish his share in favour of his brothers. The plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction, there is no collusion of plaintiffs inter-se for filing the suit and dismissed the suit on 18.5.1999. The plaintiffs filed appeal which was dismissed by learned District Judge on 27.12.1999. The plaintiffs are in second appeal which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the deceased Hakam could not have inherited the property of his father Surat Ram co