RSA/204/2026 on 3 August 2026

2026:HHC:32744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No. 204 of 2026

Date of decision: 03.08.2026. Darshan Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Sunder Singh & others

...Respondents.

Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

CMP(M) No. 973 of 2026

The instant application has been filed for condonation of 251 days delay in filing the present appeal.

2. As per averments, as made in the application, the applicant/appellant is a 80 years old person and is suffering from heart disease and he was under regular treatment from M.M. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Super Speciality Hospital, Mullana Ambala, Haryana.

3. It is averred in the application that the applicant on

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

account of his old age could not contact his counsel nor the counsel could inform him regarding the decision of the appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The applicant has placed on record the medical treatment and prescription slips, which have been annexed as Annexure A-1. It is averred that it is only in the first week of May 2026, when the applicant came to know that the respondents are approaching the Village Revenue Officer for changing the revenue entries. Thereafter, the applicant contacted his counsel and came to know that the appeal stands decided on 06.10.2025. Immediately, prompt action was taken with the help of family members to obtain certified copy of the judgment and decree and also collected the case file from his counsel and approached the present counsel at Shimla for the preparation of the present appeal. It has been contended that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but has occurred on account of unavoidable circumstances.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in case the present application is allowed.

5. Consequently, in view of the reasons stated in the application, especially in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, which are duly supported by the affidavit, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

RSA No. 204 of 2026

Be registered.

6. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant, Darshan Singh, assailing the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., dated 06.10.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff Sunder Singh came to be allowed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib, dated 23.08.2022 was reversed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed.

7. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the plaintiff Sundar Singh and others filed a suit for declaration stating therein that the plaintiffs and defendant are co-sharers in joint possession of the suit land, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 1/6, Khasra No. 32/7/3 (old) and Khata/Khatauni No. 19/44, Khasra No. 144/32 (new), measuring 5.0 bighas, situated at Mauja Dudhla, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., because same was under the tenancy of their father, Mangta.

8. As per the plaintiffs, late Mangta died in the year

1958 and the appellant/defendant being the eldest son became Karta of the family and the land which was in equal share of all of them, was wrongly got mutated in the name of the defendant after the death of late Mangta.

9. It has been stated that in the year 1975, the parties in a family settlement got the suit land separated along with other land amongst them and since then the plaintiffs are enjoying peaceful ownership and possession over 2/3rd share in the property. It is stated that in the first week of August 2014, defendant started interfering over 2/3rd share of the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs and when he was requested not to do so, he threatened to occupy the same and dispossess them, on which they verified the revenue entries and came to know that the entire suit land is in the name of the defendant, whereas he is entitled only to the extent of 1/3rd share. Therefore, the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking declaration against the defendant.

10. The suit was resisted by the defendant Darshan Singh, whereby all the averments made by the plaintiffs have been specifically refuted and denied.

11. The learned trial Court framed the issues in the matter on 21.07.2025 and vide its judgment and decree dated

23.08.2022, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

12. Feeling dissatisfied, plaintiff Sunder Singh approached the learned First Appellate Court by filing appeal under Section of the CPC, on 06.06.2023. The learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025 accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff Sunder Singh and decreed the suit as filed by the plaintiffs, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2022, passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and decree for declaration was passed to the effect that the plaintiffs along with defendant are joint owners in joint possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs were held entitled to 2/3rd share over the suit land comprising Khata/Khatauni No. 1/6, Khasra No. 32/7/3 (old) and Khata/Khatauni No. 19/44, Khasra No. 144/32 (new), measuring 5.0 bighas situated at Mauja Dudhla, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., after the death of their father, Mangta, having inherited the tenancy rights and revenue entries showing the defendant as exclusive possessor of suit land were held to be inoperative, null and void.

13. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has approached this Court by filing the instant regular second appeal by invoking the provisions of Section of the CPC.

14. This Court had issued notice to the respondents on 22.06.2026. The matter was thereafter listed before this Court on 29.07.2026 and Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 5. On the said date, it was observed that as per the report of the Registry, respondent No. 4, Kalo Devi had expired on 29.11.2023 i.e. prior to the passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.10.2025 by the learned First Appellate Court. On the said date, Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate had sought time to have the correct information in the matter and in order to verify as to whether respondent No. 4, Kalo Devi had expired prior to the passing of the impugned judgment. Today, when the matter was listed, Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, has fairly conceded that the said respondent had expired on 29.11.2023.

15. Undisputedly, the matter has been decided against a dead person, which is against the mandate as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurnam Singh (dead) through Legal representatives & others vs. Gurbachan Kaur (dead) through legal representatives, reported in (2017) 11 SCC

414, wherein it has been observed in paragraph No. 21 as under:- “It is a fundamental principle of law laid down by this Court in Kiran Singh’s case (supra) that a decree passed by the Court, if it is a nullity, its validity can be questioned in any proceeding including in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings whenever such decree is sought to be enforced by the decree holder. The reason is that the defect of this nature affects the very authority of the Court in passing such decree and goes to the root of the case. This principle, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to this case because it is a settled principle of law that the decree passed by a Court for or against a dead person is a ‘nullity’.”

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that judgment passed in favor or against a dead person is a nullity, as in the present case, respondent No. 4, Kalo Devi had expired prior to the passing of the impugned judgment.

17. In view of the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court by remanding the matter back to the learned First Appellate Court with a direction to decide the case afresh after affording an opportunity to both the parties and take the appeal to its logical end. Ordered accordingly.

18. It is agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties that appropriate application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4, Kalo Devi shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today. In the event of filing of the application, the learned First Appellate Court shall determine the question of abatement and thereafter decide the appeal itself on merits and dispose of the same expeditiously.

19. It is made clear that no fresh notices shall be issued by the learned First Appellate Court for ensuring the presence of the parties and after deciding the issue of abatement, the learned First Appellate Court shall proceed in the matter.

The parties undertake to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 03.09.2026.

20. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 3rd August, 2026. (kck)