Section 118 bars bequests of Himachal land to non-agriculturists.

Poonam Dhawan sued for a declaration that she was co-owner in possession of land in Kasauli to the extent of Smt. Surinder Kaur’s share, claiming under Surinder Kaur’s registered Will dated 6 June 2014, and sought an injunction against construction on the joint land

The defendants disputed the Will and argued, among other things, that Dhawan had been adopted in 1972 by Har Mohinder Singh, had not disclosed that adoption, and was a non-agriculturist to whom a transfer by Will was barred under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act

The trial court dismissed the interim-injunction application; the District Judge allowed Dhawan’s appeal and restrained construction on specified portions of the land

The defendants challenged that order in revision under Section 115 CPC

Whether the plaintiff’s failure to disclose her adoption, and the resulting question of her entitlement under the Will, disentitled her to interim injunctive relief

Whether the District Judge was justified in reversing the trial court’s refusal of an injunction, applying the principles governing appellate interference with discretionary interim orders

Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, interim injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable loss

The court treated an injunction as equitable relief and held that a litigant seeking it must disclose material facts; suppression of a material fact may disentitle the litigant to relief

Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that adoption severs the adopted child’s ties with the birth family and replaces them with ties to the adoptive family, subject to the statutory provisos

Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act bars, subject to the statutory exceptions, transfer of land—including by Will—in favour of a non-agriculturist

Under Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for that of the court of first instance unless the latter acted arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled principles governing injunctions

The Court found that the adoption was supported by a registered adoption deed and a declaratory decree, yet Dhawan had not pleaded it in either the original or amended plaint

It considered the adoption material to her claim under the Will and held that the nondisclosure disentitled her to discretionary interim relief

Applying Sections 12 and 118, the Court concluded, for purposes of the injunction application, that Dhawan’s adoption severed her ties with Surinder Kaur’s family and that, as a non-agriculturist, she could not obtain a valid transfer of the land under the Will

It therefore found that Dhawan had not established the required basis for an injunction and that the District Judge had wrongly interfered with the trial court’s discretionary order

The Court left the Will’s validity and suspicious-circumstances questions for determination at trial

It clarified that its observations were confined to the revision and would not affect the merits of the suit