Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir Vs Jaspal Singh Negi

For the appellant:	Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
	Ms. Narvada, Advocate, for respondents No.3(a) to 3(c) and 5 to 7.

¶10

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

¶11

The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 19^th December, 2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge Court No. 1, Dharamshala, dated 28^th June, 2018, came to be affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/present respondent No.1 was partly decreed, holding that the plaintiff is owner of the land and property bearing

¶12

2

¶13

Khata No. 171, Khatauni Nos.219, 220, and 221, Khasra Nos. 1175, 1165, 1166,. 1167, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1196, 1197, 1194, Kita 10, area measuring 0-14-96 hectares pertaining to Mohal/Mouza and Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. It was further held that the entry in the ownership and possessory column showing the plaintiff's father as the owner only of 1/26^th share and the defendants No 1 to 6 as owners of the remaining share in the suit land is wrong, illegal, collusive and contrary to the facts, and the plaintiff is not bound by the wrong entries showing his father as owner of only 1/6 share and defendants No.1 to 6 are owners of the remaining share of the suit land. Further, the plaintiff was held entitled to the relief of possession.

¶14

Feeling dissatisfied, defendant No.7, Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir, assailed the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge Court No.1, Dharamshala, in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra by filing an appeal on 16^th March, 2022. The remaining defendants were arrayed as proforma defendants before the first appellate Court.

¶15

3

¶16

The learned First appellate Court, vide its

¶17

impugned judgment and decree dated 19^th December, 2022, affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No.7 (appellant herein).

¶18

Still feeling dissatisfied, defendant No. 7, Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir, is before this Court by filing the instant present regular second appeal.

¶19

During the pendency of the present appeal, an application (CMP 19049 of 2025) was filed for adding the names of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4, Smt. Prakasho Devi, who is stated to have expired on 28.02.2006. A copy of the death certificate in Punjabi has been appended with the application as Annexure A-1.

¶20

A perusal of the same reveals that the said deceased respondent No.4 Smt. Prakasho Devi, expired before the institution of the suit

¶21

To the similar extent, the present appellant has filed an application as CMP No.7708 of 2024 on the ground that respondent No.2, Shri Chandu Ram, expired on 03.10.2021 when the matter was pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Dharamshala.

¶22

4

¶23

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurnam Singh

¶24

(dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives’ (2017) 13 SCC 414, has held that when a judgment is passed in favour of or against a dead person, the question of abatement has to be decided by the very same Court where the death occurred.

¶25

In the present case, Smt. Prakasho Devi, respondent No.4, expired prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, in view of the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurnam Singh’s case (supra) , and after setting aside the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, the matter is relegated to the Court of first appellate Court to adjudicate the issue of abatement with respect to the death of respondent No. 2. After determining the said point, if the learned first appellate Court finds favour with the contention of the present appellant, the case should be remitted back to

¶26

the learned trial Court in order to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4, Smt.Prakasho Devi.

¶27

5

¶28

It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 that the name of the said respondents could be deleted by this Court itself. However, in view of the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurnam Singh’s case (supra) , whereby it has been held that the question of abatement has to be decided by the very same Court where the death occurred, the case is relegated to the Court of first appellate Court to determine the issue of abatement with respect to the death of respondent No. 2, Chandu Ram, and thereafter to relegate the matter to the learned trial Court to determine the issue of abatement/deletion with respect to the death of respondent No.4.

¶29

Needless to say, in case the learned District Judge, Dharamshala, comes to the conclusion that the matter has to be relegated to the learned trial Court, it is only in that eventuality that the case should be remitted to the trial Court, if required/permitted under the provisions of law.

¶30

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid observations, the parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Dharamshala on 31.07.2026

¶31

6

¶32

It is contended by the learned senior counsel that

¶33

the suit pertains to the year 2012, therefore, the learned first appellate Court may be directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

In view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate court is requested to expedite the matter and to take the same to its logical end as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.

¶35

The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application, if any.

¶36

( Romesh Verma ) Judge

¶37

July 14, 2026 (vt)

Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir v. Jaspal Singh Negi

Case brief

What is this about?

Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir v. Jaspal Singh Negi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bam Dev and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar

Sher Singh Vs Nipun Jindal and Another

Balwant Singh and Others Vs Ramesh Chand (Deceased through LRs Renu and Others)

State of Hp and Others Vs Bhagat Singh

UOI and Another Vs Sukh Ram and Another

Bhim Dutt and Anr. Vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Ltd.