Being Deaf and Dumb Alone Does Not Attract Order 32 Rule 3 CPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Challenge

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a deaf and dumb co-sharer who signed summons in Hindi and was capable of protecting his interests did not require a court guardian under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC in partition proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, dismissed a writ petition challenging a mode of partition of jointly held land in Sub Tehsil Udaipur, District Lahaul & Spiti. Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, sitting singly, declined to interfere with concurrent orders of the Assistant Collector, the Collector, and the Divisional Commissioner, all of whom had upheld the partition. The petitioner, Neel Chand, had argued that one co-sharer — his brother Som Dev, who is deaf and dumb — could not participate in the proceedings without a court-appointed guardian under Order 32 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court rejected that argument, holding that deafness and muteness do not, by themselves, amount to unsoundness of mind, which is the threshold requirement for the appointment of a court guardian under that provision.

The Partition Proceedings and the Grounds of Challenge

The disputed property was jointly owned by Neel Chand, respondent No. 4, and ten other co-sharers listed as proforma respondents No. 5 to 12. Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, seeking partition of the land. The Assistant Collector Second Grade, Sub Tehsil Udaipur, framed the mode of partition on 19 October 2020.

Neel Chand appealed to the Collector under Section 14 of the Act. He raised three grounds: first, that Som Dev — his brother and a co-sharer — was deaf and dumb and could not be proceeded against without appointment of a court guardian under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC; second, that one Sh. Ram Chand had died in 1985 and his legal heirs had not been brought on record; and third, that the mode of partition would disturb his existing possession over the land.

The Collector rejected the appeal on 6 August 2021. Neel Chand carried the matter further, and the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P., affirmed the Collector’s order on 16 May 2026. The writ petition before the High Court sought to quash both the appellate and revisional orders.

Whether a Deaf and Dumb Person Requires a Court Guardian Under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC

The core legal question was whether Som Dev’s condition as a deaf and dumb person obliged the Revenue Court to appoint a court guardian for him before proceeding with the partition.

Order 32 Rule 3 of the CPC governs the appointment of a guardian for a party who is of unsound mind or is otherwise unable to protect his interests due to mental infirmity. The petitioner’s position was that Som Dev’s disability placed him in that category.

The court disagreed. Concurrent findings of the Revenue Courts showed that Som Dev had received summons on multiple occasions. Summons issued for 20 March 2018 could not be served because the Process Agency found him absent from home, having gone to Kullu for the Dussehra festival. On 1 November 2018, summons were affixed to the door of his house. Eventually, he was personally served with summons for 16 July 2020 and signed those summons in Hindi. He received and signed further summons on 24 September 2020 and again on 19 October 2020. Despite repeated personal service, Som Dev chose not to appear, and the Revenue Court proceeded against him ex-parte.

The signing of the summons in Hindi was significant to the court’s reasoning. Justice Rewal Dua accepted the Revenue Court’s inference that a person who signs summons in Hindi can read, write, and comprehend the matter placed before him.

The court set out the operative distinction clearly: being deaf and dumb does not, by itself, mean unsoundness of mind. The provision under Order 32 Rule 3 applies where it is proved that a person’s mental infirmity renders him incapable of protecting his interest in the subject property. No such proof was led. Equally, there was no allegation that Som Dev was a minor.

The court also noted that Som Dev himself had been served before the Appellate Court (Collector) and the Revisional Authority (Divisional Commissioner) and had not raised any objection at either stage. His own silence on the issue was telling. The petitioner’s counsel confirmed, in answer to a direct query from the bench, that Som Dev had been served before both authorities and had not raised the court-guardian objection himself.

The court added that, save for the petitioner, none of the other co-sharers had objected to the mode of partition.

The Other Grounds: Ram Chand’s Legal Heirs and Existing Possession

On the second ground, the concurrent findings of both the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner were that the legal heirs of Sh. Ram Chand, who had died in 1985, had in fact been brought on record in the partition proceedings. The objection was raised before both the Appellate and Revisional Authorities and was rejected on merits. The court noted that this ground was in any event not pressed in the writ petition.

The third ground — that the mode of partition would disturb the petitioner’s existing possession — was similarly not pursued before the High Court. No other objection to the mode of partition was raised by the petitioner’s counsel before Justice Rewal Dua.

Outcome

Finding no merit in the writ petition, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua dismissed CWP No. 13174 of 2026 on 4 August 2026. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand disposed of.