Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On 06.08.2025 vs Shri Kishori Lal And Others on 30 August, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1 ( 2025:HHC:29456 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 667 of 2024
Reserved on 06.08.2025
.
Date of Decision: 30.08.2025
_________________________________________________________
Smt. Chaino Devi and others .... Petitioners.
Vs.
Shri Kishori Lal and others .....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
r Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 and 3 to 7.
Respondent No. 2 ex parte.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge:
By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Total record of the Courts below may
kindly be called for perusal.
(ii) Order as passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Ghumarwin dated 13.08.2024 and
order dated 18.03.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside and quashed and application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC be dismissed."
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS2 ( 2025:HHC:29456 )
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that in a Civil Suit filed by the respondents herein, in an application .
accompanying the same, under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Trial Court, in terms of order dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P-5), directed the parties to maintain status quo qua raising any construction over the suit land, changing the nature by digging the suit land in any manner, including dispossessing the applicants and alienating the suit land. The appeal filed against the said order by the petitioners herein met with the same fate. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that neither the Civil Suit was maintainable in the light of bar being there to assail partition proceedings by way of a Civil Suit nor it was appreciated by the learned Courts below that challenge to the sale deeds being beyond the period of limitation, no prima facie case was made in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that both the learned Courts below erred in not appreciating that the property was purchased by the petitioners by way of a sale deed and registry of the sale deed is notice to the public at large and in this backdrop, delay in assailing the same was not appreciated in the correct context by the learned Courts below. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that otherwise also, as the ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS 3 ( 2025:HHC:29456 ) parameters of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not there in the case of the plaintiffs/applicants, learned Trial Court erred in .
granting the interim relief and learned Appellate Court erred in affirming the same.
4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has justified the impugned orders by submitting that as both the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs and further as balance of convenience was also in their favour, therefore, learned Trial Court correctly passed the interim order. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the light of the fact that both the learned Courts below have arrived at the conclusion that the applicants/plaintiffs were entitled for the interim relief, this petition in the absence of any perversity being there in the impugned orders, deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as pleadings on record.
6. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they are joint owners-in-possession over the suit land by virtue of a family arrangement and the defendants are strangers to the suit land.
Further, declaration has been sought that all orders passed in Case No. 45/9 of 2014, titled Chaino Devi Vs. Nikka Ram and others, i.e., orders dated 19.12.2014, 07.03.2017 & 04.07.2017, passed by Assistant Collector 2nd ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS 4 ( 2025:HHC:29456 ) Grade, Bharari and further mutation No. 1583, dated 29.08.2019 of Village Ghandhalwin sanctioned by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Bharari are .
illegal, wrong, null and void. Further decree for declaration has been sought to the effect that sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal, wrong, null and void and mutation attested to this effect is also bad. Another relief sought is that sale deed dated 06.02.2007 executed by Sh. Budhi Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 3 was illegal, wrong, null and void and did not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs.
7. The written statement filed to the plaint demonstrates that the suit is being resisted by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the same is time barred and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit in the light of bar under Sections 171(1) & 171 (2) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. It is further averred in the written statement that defendant No. 1 had purchased Khasra Nos. 582 and 583 from Shri Vikram Singh, son of Shri Kanshi Ram on 22.11.2011 by way of a registered sale deed, who had purchased the share of late Shri Budhi Singh, son of Shri Malagar on 06.02.2007, again by way of a registered sale deed. It is further mentioned in the written statement that thereafter, defendant No. 1 had initiated the proceedings for legal partition before the learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Bharari vide Case No. 45/9 of 2014 and partition had been done in accordance with law by the Revenue Courts and mutation was attested thereafter on 29.08.2019. None of the plaintiffs and their ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS 5 ( 2025:HHC:29456 ) predecessor-in-interest appeared in the partition proceedings despite receipt of notice and new Khasra number stood incorporated in the Jamabandis and .
the plaintiffs have no locus to challenge the same, as the partition proceedings had attained finality. Otherwise also, Civil Court was not having any jurisdiction in this regard in the light of bar contained under Sections 171(1) & 171(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act.
8. Now, in this backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by the learned Trial Court, one finds that in Para-4 of the order, learned Trial Court has held that the basic contention of the respondents therein was that jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under Sections 171(1) & 171(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Learned Court held that it was yet to be established by leading independent and cogent evidence that defendants No. 1 and 2 therein were bonafide purchasers. Learned Court further held that the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by one of the co-sharers, namely Sh. Budhi Singh in favour of Vikram Singh, who further executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 were yet to be proved by leading independent and cogent evidence. Learned Court also held that it was yet to be established on record that whether the proper and regular procedure was followed by the Revenue Court while conducting proceedings or not and on these bases, it held that the plaintiffs/applicants were having a prima facie case in their favour.
9. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the findings so returned by the learned Court below are per se perverse findings. It were ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS 6 ( 2025:HHC:29456 ) the plaintiffs, who were assailing the validity of the sale deeds and as the sale deeds were duly registered and mutations also stood attested on the .
basis of the said sale deeds, onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove that the sale deeds were bad in law. Learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the onus was upon the plaintiffs to have had demonstrated in the Trial Court that the sale deeds were not good. Learned Trial Court also erred in observing in the impugned order that it was yet to be established by leading independent and cogent evidence that defendants No. 1 and 2 were bonafide purchases. To the contrary, till the time it was proved by the plaintiffs that said defendants were not bonafide purchasers, they had to be presumed as bonafide purchasers. A very strange view has been taken by the learned Trial Court in this regard, which is not sustainable in law. Similarly, with regard to the proceedings before the learned Revenue Court, learned Trial Court has observed that it was yet to be established whether proper and regular procedure was followed by the Revenue Court while conducting proceedings or not. Herein also, learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that as it were the plaintiffs who were laying challenge to the revenue proceedings and there was a challenge to the same, inter alia, on the ground of maintainability, presumption, if any, was to be drawn in favour of the revenue proceedings till the same were set aside by the competent Court of law and not otherwise. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the learned Trial Court in application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a perverse order. In this ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS 7 ( 2025:HHC:29456 ) backdrop, if one peruses the appellate order, one finds that the learned Appellate Court also erred in not appreciating these extremely important .
aspects of the matter and the findings returned that the plaintiffs have been able to show a prima facie case in their favour are perverse findings. Both the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that it was the own case of the plaintiffs that the suit property stood purchased by the contesting petitioners herein by virtue of a sale deed, on the basis of which, not only mutation was attested, but thereafter, the land was also duly partitioned in accordance with law.
10. Therefore, in this factual backdrop, it could not have been held by the learned Courts below that there was a prima facie case in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs.
11. In the light of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. Order dated 18.03.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, H.P. in CMA No. 191-6 of 2024, titled Kishori Lal and others Vs. Smt. Chaio Devi and another and order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 12-14 of 2024, titled Chaino Devi and another Vs. Kishori Lal and others are set aside.
Petition stands disposed of, so also pending
miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
August 30, 2025 Judge
(bhupender)
::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS
8 ( 2025:HHC:29456 )
.
r to
::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2025 21:25:15 :::CIS