IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 RSA-1745-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 SUNDER LAL AND ANOTHER …..APPELLANTS Vs. TULSI RAM AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Plainffs are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2. One Ram Chand was Dholidar of the suit land. On his death, his rights were inherited by the three sons namely Jugal Parshad, Radha Krishan and Siri Krishan. Plainffs and Nand Lal are the legal heirs of Siri Krishan, who had expired in 2006. Defendant No.1 is the legal heir of Jugal Parshad, whereas defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of Radha Krishan. It was claimed by the plainffs that Jugal Parshad, the father of defendant No.1, had been residing with the plainffs and their brother for the last more than 50 years, who were taking care of him. Defendant No.1-Tulsi Ram never resided at Hodal, where the suit land is situated and rather, he has been residing at Rishikesh, U7arakhand for the last more than 50 years. He never performed any Dholi service to the inhabitants of Hodal Pa8 Gharam. Plainffs challenged the relinquishment deed of his rights at Dholidar by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5, on which basis Rapat No.789 dated 19.06.2004 was executed. It was contended that the said Rapat did not confer any Dholi rights upon defendant No.5, as Dholi rights cannot be alienated. According to the plainffs, they along with their brother Nand Lal had become Dholidar in possession of the suit property to the extent of half PRIYANKA 2025.05.22 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1745-2025 (O&M) share; whereas defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had become Dholidar in possession to the extent of other half share. However, the Court of Collector, Hodal vide an order dated 12.12.2013 has declared Jugal Parshad, Radha Krishan and Siri Krishan to be owner of the suit property, in view of the provisions of Haryana Dholidar, Bumar, Bhondedar and Muqaraidar (Vesng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 [for short ‘the Act of 2010’]. The said order along with consequent mutaon No.8701 dated 12.12.2013 are alleged to be illegal. Plainffs also challenged the sale deed dated 27.01.2014 in favour of defendant No.5 executed by defendant No.2 as General Power of A7orney of defendant No.1. 3. Defendants contested the suit. Trial Court dismissed the suit on 26.10.2017; and the Appellate Court has affirmed the findings of the trial Court. 4. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for appellants – plainffs that Dholi rights could not have been alienated by defendant N: 1 Tulsi Ram son of Jugal Parshad, who had never rendered any Dholi services to the inhabitants of Hodal Pa8 Gharam. 5. This Court does not find any merit in the aforesaid contenon. It will be relevant to reproduce the observaons made by the First Appellate Court based upon the evidence on record. “15. Now the main dispute in the present suit is that whether aHer the relinquishment of Dholidar rights by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 5, the suit property will be reverted back to its original owners or it will go to the remaining Dholidar i.e. plainffs and their brother and defendant no. 2 to 4 ? As per the pares, the suit property was received as a giH by their predecessors-in-interest as Dholidar from the proprietors of Shamlat Pa8 Gharam, Hodal and entries in the revenue records i.e. Ex.D4 also reflected the names of Jugal Parshad, Radha Krishan and Siri Krishan as Dholidarans. 16. A Dholi tenure is created by the proprietors of village under Sharat Wajib-Ul-Arz which specifies terms and condions of the said Dholi. The PRIYANKA 2025.05.22 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1745-2025 (O&M) Dholi is not a permanent tenure and the moment the Dholidar fails to render the requisite services for which the Dholi was created, the Dholi rights are exnguished and property reverts to its original proprietors, unless Sharat Wajib-Ul-Arz specified any condion contrary to the se7led law. In the present case, the plainffs have not placed on record any Sharat Wajib-Ul-Arz or any other document so as to show that any restricon was put on the Dholidars to not to alienate or mortgage the property. Even PW1 Kundan Lal, plainff no. 1 has stated during his cross-examinaon that he did not know whether any condion was a7ached while giHing the said property to their ancestors. Mere oral asserons made in the plaint do not prove the existence of any such condion. In absence of any such document, the relinquishment made by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 5 vide Rapat no. 789 dated 19.06.2004 cannot be said to be against the condions of Dholidari. Jugal Parshad, Radha Krishan and Shri Krishan have been declared as owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares by Collector, Hodal vide order dated 12.12.2013 passed against Municipal Council, Hodal. Even for the sake of arguments, it is considered that the relinquishment made by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 5 was not valid, then also, the share of defendant no. 1 would revert back to its original owner i.e. Municipal Council and not to remaining Dholidars of the suit property i.e. plainffs or defendant no. 2 to 4 as the land given to Dholidars will connue to be owned by Municipal Council. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the authories tled as Mohan Lal vs. Gram Panchayat, Jarthal & ors. in CWP no. 6373 of 1994 (O&M) decided on 20.01.2016 and Dharma vs. Smt. Harbai, in Regular Second Appeal no. 1313 of 1973 decided on 13.08.1976. Being the original owner, only the Municipal Council has right to challenge relinquishment in queson made by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 5 and subsequent transacons or in case of any other breach of obligaon by Dholidars. The plainffs have no locus or right to challenge the relinquishment made with regard the suit property by defendant no. 1 or the subsequent transacons, either on ground of capacity of defendant no. 1 to do the same or on the ground of non-registraon.” PRIYANKA 2025.05.22 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1745-2025 (O&M) 6. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court based upon the evidence on record. As rightly observed by the First Appellate Court, plainffs could not produce any document containing Sharat Wajib-UI-Arz regarding the condions of Dholi, as per which on relinquishment of Dholi rights, the land was to revert to the owner or that on relinquishment of Dholi rights by one Dholidar, his rights were to be transferred to other Dholidar. Under the Act of 2010, all three sons of Ram Chand namely Jugal Parshad, Radha Krishan and Siri Krishan have been rightly declared to be owner of the suit property by the Collector and the respecve legal heirs have succeeded to 1/3 share each. 7. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the fact as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon the proper appreciaon of the factual and legal posion. No merit. Dismissed. 21.05.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No PRIYANKA 2025.05.22 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document