Narinder vs Graphic Research Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This appeal is filed by defendant No. 10 in a suit for declaration in which the plaintiffs have claimed ownership and possession, on the land in dispute, by way of purchase but entries in the revenue record showing defendant No. 10 to be lessee of the plaintiff, in the ratio of 15/16 share and 1/16 share of the land measuring 5 kanals and defendant No. 1 to 9 and one deceased Sohan to be Dholidars of the said land as well as land measuring 2 kanal 6 marla, are illegal, null and void; and also for declaring the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1999 in the case titled as Surender Kumar etc. v. Moti Ram, and resultant mutation No. 830 as null and void with consequential relief of restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession. The plaintiffs had claimed that it had become the owner in possession of land measuring 5 kanals after purchasing 1/3 share on 8.12.1995 from Nina Singh etc. 1/3rd share from Manohar Lal etc vide sale deed dated 8.12.1995 and 1/3rd share taken in exchange on 26.3.1999. The aforesaid transactions were mutated vide mutation No. 701, 662 and 937 in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also became the owner and entered into possession of land measuring 2 kanal 6 marlas purchased to the extent of 1/9th share vide sale deed dated 12.2.1997, 1/9th share vide sale deed dated 27.11.1997, 1/6th share vide sale deed dated 26.5.1997, 152/540 share vide sale deed dated 17.6.1997 and 1/3rd share vide sale deed dated 19.5.1998 regarding which the mutation No. 784, 802, 805 and 932 were also sanctioned and entered in his favour. It is thus alleged that the plaintiff had become the owner of 5 kanal and 2 kanal 6 marla of lands but in the revenue record defendant No. 10 is wrongly shown as a lessee in the ratio of 15/16 and 1/16 and defendant No. 1 to 8 as Dholidars to the extent of 1/2 share, defendant No. 9 as Dholidar to the extent of 1/4th share and one Sohan (deceased) to the extent of 1/4th share. It is recorded by the Courts below that defendant No. 9 had inherited the rights of Sohan vide mutation No. 713 but the entries showing the land in possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants as Dholidars or lease holders are totally wrong because the plaintiff had also purchased the lease rights from the Dholidars vide mutation No. 705, 707 to 710 and 714. The judgment and decree dated 20.2.1999 in the suit titled as Surender Kumar etc. v. Moti Ram etc. by which defendants No. 1 to 8 were declared Dholidars and the mutation No. 830 sanctioned on the basis thereof were also alleged to be illegal, null and void. Defendants No. 1 to 8 though appeared but did not contest the suit and compromised the matter on 23.8.2003. The said compromise is on record as Ex. C-1. Defendant No. 9 did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte on 30.8.2003. The suit was basically contested by defendant No. 10, who filed his written statement alleging that he was the lessee to the extent of his share referred to above in the land measuring 5 kanals-executed by Dholidars in his favour, therefore, the possession of the land cannot be taken from him otherwise than in due course of law. On the pleadings of the parties, as many as five issues were framed. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the Appellate Court maintained the judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that since the appellant has been inducted as lessee by the Dholidars, therefore, he would become lessee of the plaintiff after they purchased the rights of Dholidars and cannot be dispossessed in the suit. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has become the owner of the property in dispute and there has been a compromise Ex. C-1 with the Dholidars.

Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Dholidars have no right to alienate the suit land in any manner and has relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sittal Dass and Another Vs. Financial Commissioner and Others, . It is also submitted that the Dholidars can retain the possession of the property in dispute till the services are performed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with their able assistance.

It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sittal Dass (Supra) that Dholi tenure cannot be alienated by way of sale, mortgage or any other manner as in the said case a perpetual lease of 99 years was created by Dholidar which was held to be void ab initio. Thus, once Dholidars had no right to lease but the suit property, defendant No. 10/appellant would not get any right. In this regard, reliance has also been placed upon the judgments rendered in the case of "Dharma v. Smt. Harbai", 1976 P.L.J. 617 (D.B.) and Tirkha, etc. Vs. Dwarka Parshad, etc., . In view of the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no question of law much less substantial is involved in this case to interfere in the second appeal against the concurrent finding of fact.

Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.