Click the Play button to listen to article

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that merely because a person is deaf and dumb, it cannot be presumed that he is of unsound mind so as to necessitate appointment of a guardian under Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Court observed that such a requirement would arise only where it is established that the person is incapable of protecting his interests in the subject property due to mental infirmity.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: "Merely because Sh. Som Dev was Deaf and Dumb, would not mean that Sh. Som Dev was a person of unsound mind which is the fundamental requirement for proceeding under Order 32 Rule 3 of CPC. That situation will arise if it is proved that a Deaf and Dumb person is incapable of protecting his interest in the subject property due to mental infirmity."

Background

The petitioner and the private respondents were co-sharers in the property in question. Respondent No.4 had approached the revenue authorities under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, seeking partition of the jointly held land.

The Assistant Collector Second Grade framed the mode of partition on October 19, 2020. The petitioner challenged it before the Collector, raising, inter alia, an objection that one of the co-sharers, Som Dev, who was his brother and allegedly deaf and dumb, could not have been proceeded against without appointment of a court guardian under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC. He also contended that the legal heirs of another co-sharer, Ram Chand, who had died in 1985, had not been brought on record and that the proposed partition would disturb his existing possession.

The Collector rejected the appeal on August 6, 2021, and the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), affirmed the decision on May 16, 2026. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court.

Findings

The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities.

On the objection concerning Som Dev, the Court noted that repeated efforts had been made to serve him with summons. He was eventually personally served on several occasions and had signed the summons in Hindi, but chose not to appear before the Revenue Court. He was consequently proceeded against ex parte.

The Court held that Som Dev's signatures in Hindi indicated that he could read, write and comprehend the matter. More importantly, the Court rejected the petitioner's contention that being deaf and dumb, by itself, made Som Dev a person of unsound mind.

It observed that the requirement of proceeding under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC would arise where it is proved that a deaf and dumb person is incapable of protecting his interests in the subject property because of mental infirmity. The Court also noted that Som Dev had been served before the appellate and revisional authorities and had himself raised no objection.

As regards Ram Chand's legal heirs, the Court noted that the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities were that his legal heirs had already been brought on record in the partition proceedings. The objection had been considered and rejected on merits, and, significantly, the petitioner did not raise this objection in the writ petition.

Finding no merit in the challenge to the mode of partition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Case Name: Neel Chand v/s Divisional Commissioner, Mandi & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No.13174 of 2026

Date of Decision: 04.08.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: