The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a long-running land dispute from Himachal Pradesh, holding that a widow who received agricultural land for her maintenance became its full owner under Hindu law. The bench made it clear that vague pleadings and missing facts cannot support a claim for injunction or recovery of possession.
The appeal was filed by legal heirs of the original plaintiff, challenging a High Court decision that had favoured the widow, Soma Devi.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to 1990, when Sham Sunder filed a civil suit in Una district seeking a permanent injunction over agricultural land measuring more than eight kanals in Village Lohara. He claimed ownership and alleged that the defendants were attempting to forcibly interfere with his possession.
Later, the plaint was amended to include a request for recovery of possession, suggesting that the land was no longer under his control.
The main contest came from Soma Devi, who asserted that she had been in possession of the land for decades. According to her, the property was given to her by her father-in-law after her husband’s death, in lieu of maintenance.
Trial Court to High Court Journey
The trial court dismissed the suit in 1992, accepting the defence that the land had been granted to Soma Devi for maintenance. The first appellate court reversed this finding in 1998, siding with the plaintiff.
However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court later restored the trial court’s view. It held that a woman’s right to maintenance is a pre-existing legal right, and once property is given towards that right, it becomes her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that their name appeared in revenue records and that Soma Devi’s possession was only permissive. They also claimed a one-sixth share in the land and pressed for recovery of possession.
Counsel for the respondents countered that the plaintiff never pleaded when or how he lost possession. Without such basic facts, the suit itself was not maintainable.
Court’s Observations
The bench, led by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, focused sharply on the nature of pleadings. It noted that in a suit for permanent injunction, possession on the date of filing is essential.
“The plaintiff must prove actual possession on the date of institution of the suit,” the bench observed.
On the alternative plea for recovery of possession, the court found serious gaps. It pointed out that the plaint did not mention the date of dispossession, the manner in which possession was lost, or how the defendant’s possession was illegal.
Quoting an earlier Supreme Court ruling, the bench reiterated that detailed pleadings are not optional. “A few bits and pieces of evidence without pleading cannot be appreciated,” the court said.
The judges also criticised the first appellate court for wrongly shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant instead of examining whether the plaintiff had established his own case.
Final Decision
After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the civil appeal. The court found no legal error in recognising Soma Devi’s ownership of the land and confirmed that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case for injunction or recovery of possession.
“No order as to costs,” the bench ruled, bringing the three-decade-old litigation to an end.
Case Title: Kanta & Others v. Soma Devi (Through LRs)
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8451 of 2011
Decision Date: 6 February 2026
