IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 441 of 2007.

Reserved on: 25 ^th February, 2026.

Decided on: 10 March, 2026.

Ram Lal & Ors. .... Appellants.

Versus Shiv Lal ....Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellants: Mr Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Pranjal Munjal, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Nemo.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. (learned First Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Theog, dated 24.05.2005 were ordered to be set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise t.o the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaratfion that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their father Budhi Ram were co-owners in possession of the land comtprised in Khewat No.13, Khatauni No.27, Kitas 2, measuring 0-17-35 hectares, Khewat No.14, Khatauni No. 28, Kitas 28, measuring 2-91-67 hectares, Khewat No.14, Khatauni No. 29, Kitas 19, measuring 1-84-62 hectares, Khewat No. 14, Khatauni No. 30, Kitas 11, measuring 1-01-89, situated at Chak Roni, Pargana Chadara, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) having 1/3^rd share each and consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from creating any obstacles in the common use and enjoyment of the suit land. It was asserted that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the sons of Budhi Ram. Plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Budhi Ram were constituting a joint Hindu Family. Budhi Ram and his sons had 1/3^rd share in the suit land. Budhi Ram died in the year 2000.

Mutation of inheritance of his estate was attested in favour of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 in equal shares. Budhi Ram had 1/ 3^rd share, and only that share was to be mutated in favour of the legal heirs; however, the entire suit land was mutated in favour of the legal heirs. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into a family arrangeoment in March 2003 and partitioned the suit land. T he houses were given to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had agreed to pay ₹ 50,000/- to defendant No.1 in three installments. The plaintiff paid ₹ 15,000/- to defendant No. 1 on 14.03.2003. Defendant No.1 is not adhering to the compromise; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement denying the contents of the plaint. However, the relationship between the parties was not disputed. It was specifically denied that the suit land was joint Hindu property, or that any coparcenary existed between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Budhi Ram. It was admitted that Budhi Ram had died and his estate was mutated in favour of all the legal heirs. The family arrangement was also denied, and it was asserted that the plaintiff procured false documents to deprive the defendants of their rights. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. No replication was filed. .

5. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on

28.08.2004: -

1. Whether the suit property is a Joint Hindu Family and coparcenary property, if so, its effuect? OPP

2. oWhether in between plaintiff and defendant No.1, a family arrangement took place in March

2003, if so, its effect? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction, as alleged? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Relief.

6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and plaintiff Shiv Lal examined himself as PW-1, Kishan Lal (PW-2) and Rati Ram (PW-3). Defendant