IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.134/2025 Date of Decision: 10th July, 2025. Ilam Devi .....Appellant Versus Jawahar Lal …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgement and decree dated 09.11.2023 passed by Learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division, Rampur Bushahr, in Civil Appeal No. 68/2023 affirming the Judgement and Decree dated 16.09.2019 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur Camp at Rampur Bushahr. in Civil Suit No-14 of 2017. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is not the wife of the defendant, Jawahar Lal, and that the revenue entries recording her as his wife in the record of rights pertaining to land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 90/2001, Khasra Nos. 251 and 252, measuring 0-59-38 hectares, situated in village Karsoli, Tehsil Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, HP, vide 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 Mutation No. 70 dated 31.05.2016, are wrong, illegal, null, and void. The plaintiff claimed to be the wife of Shri Trilochan Singh, and asserted that her name was wrongly recorded as the wife of the defendant in the revenue records. She further stated that she was never married to the defendant and had only been married once to Shri Trilochan Singh, with whom she had three children. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant manipulated the revenue entries to tarnish her reputation and unlawfully claim her land and other valuables in the event of her death. She also contended that the mutation of the sale deed was attested without her knowledge based on fictitious documents, in collusion with revenue officials, and without proper verification. 4. The defendant contested the suit, raising objections regarding maintainability, valuation, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, and limitation. On merits, the defendant argued that the plaintiff herself had applied to the revenue authorities on 03.04.2006, requesting to be recorded as his wife in the mutation, and thus could not retract her claim at this stage. He further claimed that the plaintiff had ceased to be the owner of the land in question due to a credit deed executed on 03.08.2005, wherein she borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from him to purchase land from one Smt. Usha. As per the terms of the deed, if the plaintiff failed to repay the amount by 30.06.2007, the land would be deemed sold to the defendant. The defendant 3 asserted that since the plaintiff had not repaid the amount, he had become the lawful owner of the land. Additionally, the defendant denied any marital relationship with the plaintiff, stating that she had falsely represented herself as his wife before the revenue authorities, and the entries were made without his consent or any documentary proof. 5. The trial court framed the following issues on 20.03.2018: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration to the effect that she is not the wife of Jawahar Lal, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration that the revenue entries made in the record are wrong, illegal, null, and void, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to her own act, omissions, and commissions, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff, issues No. 3 and 5 in favour of the defendant, and issues No. 4 and 6 against the defendant, ultimately dismissing the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, particularly the entries in the 4 family register (Ext. PW-1/B) which supported her claim of being the wife of Shri Trilochan Singh and not the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the trial court ignored the admission of the defendant that she was not his wife and that the revenue entries were made at her own request without his involvement. Additionally, it was submitted that the trial court erroneously relied on the credit deed (Ext. D-1 and Ext. D-2) without proper proof and failed to consider that the mutation was attested without her presence or verification by the revenue authorities. The plaintiff further asserted that the defendant’s defense was contrary to law and that the issue of her marital status remained unresolved despite the alleged credit deed. The impugned judgments were thus claimed to be based on conjectures and surmises, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The plaintiff sought reversal of the findings on issues No. 1, 3, and 5 and a decree in her favour declaring that she is not the wife of the defendant and that the revenue entries are illegal and void. The First Appellate court dismissed the appeal, therefore the present Second Appeal was preferred. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. 9. The plaintiff, while appearing as PW-1, asserted in her affidavit (Ext. PW/A) that she is the owner of land comprised in Khewat No. 90/2011, Khasra Nos. 251 and 252, situated in Village Karsoli, Tehsil Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, HP, 5 having acquired ownership through purchase, with mutation No. 70 dated 31.05.2016 attested in her favour. However, she failed to produce the jamabandi and instead relied on mutation No. 71, which was not a sale mutation but a correction entry recording her as the wife of the defendant instead of her father’s name. This indicates that the plaintiff herself sought the correction, leading to her being recorded as the defendant’s wife in the revenue records. Even if this entry is deemed incorrect, she cannot unilaterally claim to be the wife of Shri Trilochan Singh without his presence in the suit, and at best, the entry should revert to her original status as the daughter of Shri Kishan Lal. 10. The plaintiff claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Shri Trilochan Singh, and cited an entry in the Gram Panchayat’s family register (Ext. PW-1/B) as proof. However, she neither examined Shri Trilochan Singh nor produced any independent witness to corroborate her marital status. The family register entry only mentions one child, Jasprit Singh, without confirming three children as alleged. Additionally, the plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that in the Special Power of Attorney (Ext. D-1) executed in favour of the defendant, she was recorded as the daughter of Shri Kishan Lal, not as the wife of Shri Trilochan Singh. She further conceded that her husband resided in Reckong Peo, Kinnaur, yet failed to produce any revenue records from there to substantiate her claim. 6 11. The plaintiff denied executing any credit deed (Mark-A) in favour of the defendant or borrowing Rs. 2,00,000/- from him, though she admitted her signatures on related stamp papers. She also denied moving an application (Ext. D-2) before the Assistant Collector, Rampur, seeking to be recorded as the defendant’s wife. However, her association with the defendant as his attorney and her failure to explain discrepancies in her testimony cast doubt on her credibility. The defendant, on the other hand, disowned any marital relationship with her and asserted that the plaintiff herself had manipulated the revenue entries. 12. The suit suffers from two fatal defects: first, it is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff sought a declaratory relief without impleading Shri Trilochan Singh, whose rights would be directly affected. Second, her failure to join Shri Trilochan Singh as a necessary party renders the suit non-maintainable. The plaintiff’s conduct, including her contradictory statements and suppression of material facts, further weakens her case. The trial court rightly dismissed the suit, finding no evidence to support her claim of being the wife of Shri Trilochan Singh or to establish that the revenue entries were fraudulent. The findings of the lower courts are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in this second appeal. 13. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the 7 appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th July, 2025 (T.B/Gaurav Rawat)