IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.260/2025 Date of Decision: 27th November, 2025.

Priya Vrat .....Appellant Versus .

Sambodhna Devi and Ors. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

W hether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Nemo.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, HP in Civil Appeal No.30-G/XIII/2023/2017, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehra, District Kangra, HP, in Civil Suit No.16 of 2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned trial Court. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a civil suit against the appellant and other respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) in the learned trial court seeking partition and possession of her share

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

to the extent of 25967/311600 in the land comprised in khata No.296, khatoni No.477, Khasra No.1933/1509, measPuring

3116 sq. mts., situated in Mohal Amarpuri, Mauza Dehra, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The plaintiff also sought a restraint order against the defendants from transferring, alienating, or changing the nature of the land till the decision of the suit, and further prayed for rendition of accounts on accountt of cultivation of the land by defendants No.1 and 2 to the extent of her share. This suit was partly decreed by the learned trial court, holding the plaintiff to be owner in possession to the extent of 25967/311600 shares in the suit land and granting her possession by way of partition of her share. The court further restrained the defendants from causing any interference in the suit land till its partition.

g3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the parties as per the jamabandi for the year 2006-2007, having originally been owned by Shri Vishwa Nath, to whom defendants No.1 and 2 had succeeded. The plaintiff claimed that she received a portion of this land from her mother, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, vide a registered gift deed dated 03.11.1994, measuring 259.61 square meters, and was given possession on the Southern- Western side. She contended that after her husband's death in 1992, she was left destitute and the land was gifted to her for constructing a house. She alleged that she remained in possession till 2007, after which defendants No.1 and 2 took possession and began cultivating the land, enjoying its Pyield.

The plaintiff, therefore, sought partition of her share, which she calculated as 25967/311600, and also claimed a share in the shops constructed on the land.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiff received the property frtom her mother via the gift deed and stated he had no objection to the separation of her khata and share by a decree of partition, but denied her claim for accounts and a share in the shops. Defendant No.2, the present appellant, contested the suit vehemently, taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, and limitation. On merits, he denied that the plaintiff was a joint gowner, alleging that the gift deed was fraudulent, illegal, and executed without the sound mental capacity of Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who purportedly used to sign documents and not affix a thumb impression. He further contended that the plaintiff had