IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.154/2023

Date of Decision: 17th December, 2025.

Sher Singh and Ors. .....Appellants

Versus .

Ganga Ram and Ors. …..Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

W hether approved for reporting?1

For the Appellants: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr.

Narender Kumar Reddy, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. tVivek Thakur, Advocate, for

respondent No.1.

Mr. Amrit, Advocate, vice Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, for respondents

No.2 to 6.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100

of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2023, passed by the learned

gDistrict Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Civil Appeal

iNo.1/2023/2021, modifying the judgment and decree dated

25.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thunag, District

Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No.73/2021/2015.

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.

3. The facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the land comprised in specific Khata Khatauni numbers situated

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

in Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P., was the ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1P, and that sale deed no. 25 dated 28.01.2015 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 regarding part of the suit land was illegal, null and void. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land was joint Hindu family ancestral property, recorded in the name of defendant no. 1t as the Karta, and that the sale by defendant no. 1 was without legal necessity and affected the plaintiff's rights. Defendants no. 2 to 4 contested the suit, denying that the land was coparcenary property and asserting that defendant no. 1 had sold a specific share for valid consideration, making defendant no. 2 a bona fide purchaser. Defendants no. 5 to 8 supported the plaintiff's case. Defendant gno. 1 was proceeded ex-parte.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 05.07.2016:-

1. Whether the suit land is ancestral and coparcenary joint Hindu property, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the sale deed no. 25 dated 28.01.2015 is null and void, as alleged? OPP

3. If issues no. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action, as alleged? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD

8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, as alleged?OPD

9. Whether defendants no. 2 to 4 are the bonafide purchaser for consideration, as alleged? OPD 2 to 4

10. Relief.

5. Upon evidence, the learned trial Court held that the suit land, except the portion sold, was ancestral and coparcenary property. It concluded that defendant no. 1 had sold land within his notional share, the sale was for repaying a bank loan, and there was no proof of illegal or immoral activity by the Karta. Consequently, the trial Court answered issue no. 1 partly in the affirmative, issues no. 4 to 6 and 9 in the affirmative, and issues no. 2, 3, 7 and 8 in the negative, decreeing the suit partly.

6. AgCgrieved, the plaintiff filed the first appeal contending that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence which established the entire suit land as ancestral. It was urged gthat defendant no. 1 sold more than his sh