IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
( 2026:HHC:14255 )
RSA No. 81 of 2024.
Decided on :28th April, 2026.
Smt. Krishna Devi ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Dini ....Respondent.
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
For the Appellants: Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Kaushal and Mr. Shayam Sharma, Advocates.
Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. dated 22.06.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., dated 30.07.2021, was affirmed whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession by way of revocation of conditional gift deed dated 17.02.2009 was decreed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of revocation of conditional gift deed dated 17.02.2009. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff was owner in possession of the land measuring 2-13-0 bighas, being 53/106 share of total land measuring 5-6-0 bighas, comprised in Khasra No. 1110, Khata Khatauni No.321/439, as incorporated in the copy of jamabandi for the year 2004-2005, situated in Phati Shat, Kothi Chong, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Since, the plaintiff has no issue and defendant being the daughter of plaintiff’s brother assured the plaintiff that she would render whole hearted services to the plaintiff throughout her life, in case she executed a conditional gift deed with respect to the suit land measuring 2-13-0 bigha in her favour.
3. That the plaintiff believing the assurance given by the defendant, out of love and affection and belief had executed a conditional gift deed in favour of defendant on 17.02.2009 before the Sub Registrar, Kullu on the condition that the defendant shall look after and take care of the plaintiff for rest of her life in lieu of which the plaintiff bestowed the aforesaid suit land as conditional gift in her favour. After execution of conditional gift deed, defendant was got married and thereafter she alongwith her husband started living with the plaintiff. The behaviour of the defendant towards the plaintiff remained affectionate for about 9.10 months, but after that, defendant and her husband started neglecting, misbehaving and maltreating the plaintiff. The plaintiff was verbally and mentally abused by the defendant and her husband and the defendant stopped looking after and taking care of the plaintiff. They used to pressurize the plaintiff to get the remaining land/property transferred in the name of the defendant, either as gift or by way of registered sale deed to which the plaintiff did not accede.
4. The defendant left the house of plaintiff without any rhyme or reason under the sole pretext that the plaintiff transfers the remaining land in her favour, is now residing with her father and is neither taking care nor looking after the plaintiff nor rendering any sort of services to her, which she was required to do in lieu of land given to her by the plaintiff by way of conditional gift deed. The defendant despite the repeated requests of the plaintiff, has failed to render services and to take care and look after the plaintiff. The defendant after getting the mutation attested in her favour on the basis of conditional gift deed became owner and has created a charge, with a view to make loss to the plaintiff, in favour of proforma defendant on 29.05.2012 and as such the bank has been arrayed as proforma defendant. The suit was filed for possession of the suit land by way of revocation of conditional gift deed dated 17.02.2009 and also mutation No.1422, dated 22.04.2009 sanctioned in favour of defendant on the basis of aforesaid conditional gift deed be also declared null and void.
5. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections with respect of maintainability and estoppel etc. On merits, all the averments made in the plaint were refuted and denied. It was stated in the written statement that defendant No.1 along with her husband are rendering services to the plaintiff. It was the plaintiff who wanted to give her entire land to defendant No.1. It was sta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.