Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Narinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Jatinder Kumar – Respondent
SA No.288/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Jeet Ram Poswal
For the Respondents:Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Janesh Gupta
A party's long-term acceptance of a property settlement undermines later claims against it, particularly when benefits have been derived from the arrangement.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of share and correction of revenue records - The plaintiff alleged improper mutation leading to unequal ownership records - The trial court dismissed the suit, affirming that the plaintiff acquiesced to the oral settlement - Issue of family dynamics relevant in property distribution was addressed. (Paras 1, 4, 13)
(B) Acquiescence - The concept that long-term acceptance of a situation negates subsequent claims by a party who availed benefits from that arrangement was a core discussion in the case. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed entitlement to a 1/3rd share in family-owned properties, alleging wrongful manipulation of revenue records by the defendants who are his brothers and mother, leading to unequal land distribution. The court examined family dynamics influencing property distribution.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff's previous acceptance of allocated shares negated his later claims against the family settlement as a lawful decision reflecting the roles and contributions of each party.
Issues: The ownership distribution and validity of the initial family settlement were key issues addressed during court deliberations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence supported defendant No. 1's claims of proper settlement, and the plaintiff's challenge lacked credibility given his previous acquiescence and benefits derived from the settlement.
Result: Appeal dismissed being devoid of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants' response to the claims and the basis of their arguments. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 2. court's analysis of the evidence and parties' behaviors. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. summary of the court's conclusion regarding the merits of the appeal. (Para 13) |
Coram f The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Jeet Ram Poswal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Janesh Gupta, Advocate.
Bipin Chander oNegi, Judge (oral).
The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judghement and decree dated 13.05.2022 passed by the leagrned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan in Civil Appeal No. 51/2018 affirming the Judgement and Decree dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 50/1 of 2014
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendants" in accordance with their status before the trial court.
3. The brief facts as presented in the second appeal are that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are real brothers, and
defendant No. 2 is their mother. The suit property, comprising land in Khewat/Khatauni No. 457/497, with Khasra Nos. 932 P (21-32), 933 (22-40), 934 (11-20), 935 (28-50), 936 (3.6-98), 937 (20-10), 938 (45-00), and Kita/Plot No. 7, totaling 185.50 square meters, situated in Mauja Up-Mohal Naya Nalagarh, Hadbast No. 139/2, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distroict Solan, H.P., was originally purchased by Sh. Lakhu M al, the grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. rThe parties also jointly own 39 bighas 13 biswas of land in village Doli, with each holding a 1/3rd share. However, the suit land has not been partitioned, and the plaintiff claims entitlement to a 1/3rd share in it as well.
4. The plaintiff alleges that the revenue records inaccurately reflect unequal shares, with the plaintiff being allotted only Khasra No. 933 measuring 22.40 square meters, on which he obtained a loan. It is contended that defendant No. 1 manipulated Mutation No. 286 by falsely reporting a Tamliq Nama through the Patwari Halka via Rapat No. 224 dated 22.01.2002, leading to incorrect entries in the revenue records. This mutation was signed by Ram Saran (father of defendant No. 1), Soma Devi (defendant No. 2), Jatinder (defendant No. 1), and Khushi Ram, without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. The plaintiff asserts that the Tamliq Nama, the basis of the mutation, could not be traced despite efforts, and the mutation is illegal and without basis. The P plaintiff seeks a declaration of his 1/3rd share in the. suit property, correction of revenue records, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him or altering the property's nature. o
5. The defendants contested th e suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainrability, estoppel, locus standi, and lack of clean hands. They claimed that Ram Saran had orally settled the property during his lifetime, distributing it among the plaintiff and defendants, which was reported to the revenue authorities, leading to the mutation. The plaintiff allegedly accepted his allotted share, constructed a shop on Khasra No. 933, and mortgaged it for a loan, while defendant No. 1 reconstructed shops on Khasra Nos. 935 and 936. Khasra No. 932, containing shops, was retained by Ram Saran for his livelihood and was later mutated equally among all parties after his death. The defendants argued that the plaintiff, having benefited from the settlement, cannot now challenge it.
6. The trial court framed the following issues on
22.12.2014:
1. Whether the plaintiff is co-owner and co-sharer of the suit property with the defendants and has got 1/3rd share therein as alleged?...OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory
