IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 571 of 2006 Reserved on: 17.03.2026 Date of Decision: 04.05.2026 Rajinder Singh o ...Appellant Versus Hari Singh & Ors t ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Appellant : Mr Mohinder Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents : None Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2001, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Court No.5, Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same

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

manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rHise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that relinquishment deed/release deed dated 15.02.1999 stated to have been executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 47/51 measuring 6-12 bighas, Khata Khatauni No. 54/58 measuring 7.07 bighas, Khata Khatauni No. 55/65, Khasra No. 879/806/772/451 measuring 4.10 big has total measuring 17-19 bighas situated at village Pagog, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is null and void and does not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs being the co-sharer in the suit land. A consequential relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendant No.1 from acting upon the relinquishment deed and getting the revenue entries mutated in his favour was also sought. It was asserted that the plaintiffs are the sons of Defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 inherited the property from his father. The pedigree table of the parties is as follows:

Sunder .

Gopal Thoru Kapru Buhagat Ram and his sons

3. The plaintiff’s family is a joint Hindu undivided family, and the suit land is an ancestral property. Defendant No.2 is not entitled to alienate the property without any legal necessity. He executed a relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1 to deprive the plaintiffs of their right. The relinquishment deed could not have been executed without the plaintiffs’ consent. Defendant No.1 obtained the loan of ₹3,67,000/- from H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, The Mall, Shimla, based on the relinquishment deed. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief mentioned above.

4. The suit is opposed by filing a written statement taking a preliminary objection regarding the lack of locus standi. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the suit land is ancestral and it was inherited by the defendants from their ancestors. As per the defendants, the pedigree table is as follows:

Sunder Gopal Thoru Kapuru Deep Ram Bhagat Ram Sarju Sharda Rajinder Surinder Hari Bishan Amar Daleep Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh

5. The family had land in village Bhotru, Pagog and Parchi. Bhagat Ram was residing in village Bhotru and was managing the land in that village. Hence, his name was entered in the revenue record. Deep Ram resided in village Pagog, and his name was recorded in the revenue record of the village Pagog. The rest of the land was recorded in the joint possession of Deep Ram and defendant No.2 after the death of Kapuru. Sarju had also inherited 1/3^rd share in the estate of Kapuru along with his sons Deep Ram and Bhagat Ram. Bhagat Ram started disposing of the property jointly owned by him. He had disposed of more than his shuare in the joint property. Defendant No.1 brought this facto to the notice of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 admitted hCis mistake and executed a relinquishment deed in favour of def