DHARAM SINGH Vs. PHULLAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal challenging findings of facts recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat in his judgment and decree dated 5/5/2005. The view taken by the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr Division), Ganaur in his judgment and decree dated 9-9-2003 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants has been reversed who have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land which was given on Dholi by the ancestors of the plaintiff-appellants to the ancestors of the defendant- respondents has to revert back to them because the defendant-respondents have failed to perform pooja on the day of 'Amavasya' for the ancestors of the plaintiff-appellants. It was claimed that after the death of ancestors of the defendant-respondents, the rituals of performing pooja have stopped and the Dholi which was dependent on the aforementioned condition has come to an end As a result, the land will revert back to the plaintiff-appellants. Learned Additional District Judge has found it as a fact that the defendant-respondents are Dholidars over the suit land since their fore fathers It has been proved on record that Raje and Section the predecessors-in-interest of the defendant-respondents are recorded to be in possession of the suit land since 1884-85 (Ex. D5) and in the Jamabandi for the year 1909-10 (Ex. D6) Dhanno wife of Niyadar and Jug Lai son of Section have been recorded as Dhohdars without payment of Lagan. Similar is the position of the jamabandi for the years 1933-34 (Ex D8) where Jug Lal has been shown to be in possession as Dholidar Bila Lagan and he continues in the same capacity in the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 (Ex. D-10). After the death of Der Ram, mutation No. 1111 (Ex. D3) was sanctioned in favour of his sons. The argument of the plaintiff- appellants that the right of Dholi has extinguished on the violation of the stipulation in Dholi that the defendant-respondents had stopped performing pooja on the day of Amavasya which was the basic reason for creation of Dholi. The aforementioned stipulation has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge relying on a judgment of this Court with the following observations

(2.) It has further been found that there was no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff-appellants were put in possession of the suit land after the death of Dei Ram and merely because the revenue record continued to reflect his name, would not constitute a ground to conclude that the defendant-respondents who are sons of Dei Ram would not inherit the possession as Dhohdars. In this regard reliance has been placed by the learned Additional District Judge on another judgment of this Court in the case of Baba Badri Dass v. Sh. Dharma, 1981 PLJ 447 . (AIR 1982 P & H 255). In the aforementioned judgment, this Court has held that Dholi tenure is an instance of Malik Kabza. It is not a perpetual tenancy or has any connection with the concept of tenancy at all Holding that the Dholi in the instant case has never been intercepted in favour of any Chela etc. therefore, absence of any Chela of deceased Dei Ram was of no consequence nor it could be assumed that Dholi had come to an end after his death. In this regard, firm findings have been recorded by the learned Appellate Court which read as under :-

(3.) Alter hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise for determination of this Court Firstly no deed of Dholi has been produced on record wherein the conditions of Dhoh might have been enshrined In the absence of furnishing any proof showing the stipulation that the defendant-respondents were under an obligation to perform pooja by hung a Jyoti it cannot be concluded that any condition of Dhoh has been violated once such a stipulation is non-existent a land which is proved to be in possession of defendant respondents through their ancestors since 1884 cannot revert back to the plaintiff-appellants Merely because the entries continued to be in the name of widow and father of the defendant respondents respectively would not lead to a conclusion that the Dhoh has to revert back to the plaintiff-appellants or because Dei Ram was not able to nominate any Chela The Dholi in fact has been found to be inheritable as it has been proved that after Raje and Section, it came to Dhanno and Jug Lal by succession and from Jug Lal to Dei Ram The documents Exs D- 5 to D-8 and D-10 bear ample testimony to this effect The aforementioned view has also been taken by the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Chand (2003 (1) Pun LJ 321) (supra) Therefore, there is no room to interfere in the view taken by the learned Additional Distnct Judge The defendant- respondents cannot be deprived of their rights which have been proved on record since 1884