Ravinder Singh Vs Baldev Singh

2026:HHC:6358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 191/2024 Reserved on: 02.03.2026 Decided on: 09.03.2026

Ravinder Singh Thapa …..Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh Thapa ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: None for the respondent.

¶9

Romesh Verma, Judge

¶10

The present petition arises out of order, dated 12.3.2024 as passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala, whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been dismissed and order dated 10.08.2023 as passed passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala has been affirmed.

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

2 The facts as emanate from the pleadings are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Kangra at Dharamshala on 20.05.2023 on the ground that the land comprised in Khata No. 85, Khatauni No. 106, Khasra Nos. 1443/1045, 1444/1052 and 1446/1053, Kita-3, area measuring 0-07-80 hectares, situated in Mohal Jhikli Dar, Mauza Khaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra vide jamabandi for the year 2015-16 is recorded in the ownership and possession of the respondent/defendant. It was averred that earlier the suit land was recorded in ownership and possession of the father of the parties, namely, Puran Singh Thapa, who built up a residential house on the suit land and thereafter his entire family was residing in the same house. After the demise of predecessor-in-interest of the parties, his property was inherited by the petitioner, respondent and other legal heirs of deceased Puran Singh. The petitioner is in settled possession of the suit land and the house over the same is having two rooms with Puja room and the same is in joint ownership of the parties and the same be declared so.

¶14

3 It was averred that the petitioner never executed any GPA in favour of his real brother deceased Surinder Singh in the year 2006. He never authorized him to execute the

¶15

3

¶16

release deed No. 1237/2006 dated 16.11.2006 in favour of the respondent as the petitioner was having legal right in the suit land as he is residing in the same house. The petitioner was serving in Indian Army and was posted at Calcutta in the year 2006. He neither intended nor he ever surrendered his share in favour of the respondent. It was further averred that the release deed is fake and fictitious. The petitioner only executed GPA in favour of deceased Surinder Singh bearing No. 400/2009 on 17.11.2009 with respect to some other land and the same was cancelled by the petitioner on 23.12.2013 and thereafter he never executed any other document in favour of the deceased Surinder Singh and the respondent. Therefore, the suit was filed seeking permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondent.

¶17

4 Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, wherein it was prayed that the respondent/defendant be restrained from raising any type of construction, dispossessing the petitioner from the suit land, dismantling old house and alienating the suit land till disposal of the main suit.

¶18

5 The suit was contested and resisted by the respondent and preliminary objections qua locus stand,

¶19

4

¶20

limitation, non joinder of necessary parties, estoppel etc. were raised. On merits, it was contended that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by father of the parties, namely, Puran Singh, who died in the year 1976 and after death of the parents, the suit land was transferred to the respondent by the legal heirs of the deceased Puran Singh by mutual consent to fulfill desire of their parents as the respondent was maintaining house in question and provided other financial assistance to his old parents.

¶21

6 All the brothers and sisters voluntarily executed

¶22

GPA in the name of deceased Surinder Singh Thapa, who was their brother and also a retired Colonel, who transferred the suit property to the respondent on the basis of GPA. All other legal heirs of deceased Puran Singh were residing outside in connection with their jobs and the respondent was in peaceful possession of the suit land after demise of their father in the year 1976. All sisters have relinquished their shares in favour of the parties and other brothers. It was stated that the petitioner and other brothers and sisters of the respondent voluntarily executed a GPA in favour of deceased Surinder Singh who further transferred the suit property to the respondent vide release deed No. 1237/06, dated 16.11.2006. The respondent was put in possession as absolute owner of the

¶23

5

¶24

suit property, therefore, the petitioner has got no cause of action or any right or title over of the suit property.

¶25

7 The respondent contested and resisted the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by filing reply.

¶26

8 The learned Senior Civil Judge vide its order dated 10.08.2023 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge Kangra, who too vide order dated 12.03.2024 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings as rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge.

¶27

9 Still feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition.

¶28

10 Notices were issued in the present petition on 08.04.2024 and on the next date i.e. 15.06.2024, Mr. V. S. Rathore, Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, thereafter neither on 08.07.2025 nor on 18.11.2025 anybody appeared for the respondent. 11 I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. He has submitted that impugned orders as passed by the courts below are erroneous and liable to be interfered with and set aside since the courts below have not

¶29

6

¶30

decided the controversy in question as per legal parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the learned Courts below have wrongly rejected his case on surmises and conjectures and therefore after setting aside the impugned orders, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC deserves to be allowed.

¶31

12 From the perusal of the case file, it emanates that the plaintiff/petitioner approached the learned Senior Civil Judge for seeking declaration and injunction on the ground that he never executed any GPA in favour of the his real brother deceased Surinder Singh, who further executed release deed No. 1237/06, dated 16.11.2006 in favour of the respondent.

¶32

13 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said GPA and release deed are sham transaction and the same carry no value in the eyes of law. He has stated that his client was serving in the Indian Army and at the relevant time he was posted at Calcutta. His client never offered or intended to execute any GPA in favour of his brother Surinder Singh, who in connivance with the respondent executed a release deed qua the suit property. He has further submitted that the said documents are fraudulent, vague and bogus and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same.

¶33

7

¶34

14 Record reveals that GPA dated 25.10.2006 was executed by the petitioner in favour of Surinder Singh, brother of the parties, who on the basis of authorization given by the petitioner thereafter executed release deed in favour of the respondent.

¶35

15 Copy of the affidavit as executed by Surinder Singh at the time of execution of the release deed has also been placed on record pursuant to that necessary mutations bearing No. 682, 683 and 672 were attested in favour of the respondent.

¶36

16 The very case of the plaintiff/petitioner comes under suspicion because on the one hand his plea is that he never executed GPA dated 25.10.2006 in favour of his brother Surinder Singh, who executed release deed in favour of the respondent. However, the record reveals that the petitioner himself has pleaded in his plaint that he had also executed GPA bearing No.400/2009 dated 17.11.2009 in favour of Surinder Singh with respect to some other land and the same GPA was cancelled by the petitioner vide registered cancelation deed bearing No. 285/2013, dated 23.12.2013. It has also come on record that the petitioner has also executed GPA in favour of his brother Surinder Singh on 03.02.2007 which was placed on record by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner

¶37

8

¶38

has executed GPAs dated 25.10.2006, 03.02.2007 and 17.11.2009. From the perusal of GPAs it reveal that the petitioner has executed various GPAs in favour of his brother Surinder Singh in order to deal with suit property as per the will and wish of the petitioner. Execution of the GPA dated 03.02.2007 has been concealed by the petitioner in his plaint. It seems that in order to defeat rights of the respondent, the present case has been filed for cancellation of the GPA on the basis of which release deed No. 1237/06, dated 16.11.2006 was executed by the petitioner through Surinder Singh in favour of the respondent.

¶39

17 The plea of injunction is discretionary relief and party who seeks equitable relief should approach the Court with clean hands.

¶40

18 In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, it reveals that the petitioner has concealed the fact with respect to execution of the GPA dated 03.02.2007 as a result of which adverse inference is required to be drawn against the petitioner.

¶41

19 Important aspect of the matter is that the aforesaid GPAs were executed in favour of Surinder Singh and no challenge was laid to the said GPAs during the life time of Surinder Singh. He expired on 21.08.2022 and the proceedings

¶42

9

¶43

have been initiated only after his death and it speaks volume about conduct of the petitioner as during life time of Surinder Singh who was best person to have disclosed true facts, the GPA in question was never agitated by the petitioner and after his death the present suit has been filed seeking declaration and injunction that the petitioner never executed GPA in favour of Surinder Singh who further executed release deed in question in favour of the respondent.

¶44

20 Perusal of the record further goes to establish that the release deed was executed not only by the petitioner, but also by other legal heirs of Puran Singh. It seems that some settlement would have taken between the family members especially legal heirs of deceased Puran Singh for which reason they relinquished their shares in favour of the respondent.

¶45

21 In order to obtain injunction, the petitioner is required to show prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The petitioner has to pass the hurdle of triplicate test and until and unless ingredients are made out no injunction can be granted against the respondent.

¶46

22 It has come on record that it is the respondent who

¶47

is in possession of the part of the house over the suit land. The revenue records is also in favour of the respondent since 2006,

¶48

10

¶49

therefore, it is the respondent/defendant who has got prima facie case in his favour.

¶50

23 Though the release deed was executed on 16.11.2006, however interestingly suit has been filed by the petitioner after lapse of more than 17 years. The suit which has been filed by the petitioner does not show any prima facie case in his favour.

¶51

24 The Courts below have concurrently and rightly held that no case is made out for interim relief in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. Both the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the pleadings and documents placed on record and based upon that reasonable findings have been rendered which do not call for any interference. The petitioner has failed to pass triplicate test of prima case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, therefore, no case is made out for grant of injunction.

¶52

25 Any observation(s) made hereinabove shall not be

¶53

construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.

¶54

26 Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed so also the pending application (s), if

¶55

any.

¶56

(Romesh Verma) 09.03.2026 Judge

¶57

(pankaj)