Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. It has been concurrently found that the plaintiff-respondents are the co-owners of the suit land as has been mentioned in the jamabandis Exs.Pl, P2 and the statement made by DW2 admitting the ownership of plaintiff-respondents 2. Even otherwise, the defendant-appellants did not specifically deny the ownership and proprietorship of the plaintiff-respondents. It has further been found that the land in dispute is dohli and no sale, mortgage, lease for 99 years in respect of such a land is permissible and the same has to be held as void ab initio. The lease deed dated 20.8.1994 for a period of 99 years in respect of Dohli land has been held to be void ab inito as it amounted to permanent alienation. The law does not confer any rights on the lessee like the defendant-appellants and reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court and other courts in the case of Sewa Ram v. Udegir, A.I.R. 1922 Lahore 126, Tirkha and Ors. v. Dewarka Par shad and Anr., 1972 P.L.J. 614; and Sittal Doss and Anr. v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors., 1989 P.L.J. 148. The owners have been held to be competent to file a suit and there was no reference with regard to production of Wajib-ul-arz. The Dohli tenure came to an end because the Dohlidars did not carry out the religious purpose of the Dohli. The claim of the Dohli-dar is that his right to occupy and continue as Dohlidar cannot be disputed but they did not produce any condition or restriction to show that Dohlidar was not competent to lease out the land for 99 years. It is appropriate to mention that Dohli is a rent-free grant of a small plot of land by village community for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine, or to a person for religious purpose. Such land cannot be alienated by sale or mortgage because the status of Dohlidar is that of a trustee. In the instant case, the lease for 99 years at a fixed amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- with possession to Dohli was given to the lessee vide lease deed dated 20.8.1993. Accordingly, the lessee could not be evicted from the Dohli before the expiry of full term of 99 years and possession could not be taken from the lessee, even though Dohildar has been rendering no service. It has been held by the Courts below that it is settled law that Dohli is not for a permanent tenure; and Dohli rights are extinguished and the property reverts back to the original proprietors. It is in these circumstances that the lease deed in favour of the defendant-appellants was held to be void conferring no right.

2. Brief facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant appeal are that plaintiff-respondents Surat Singh and others filed Civil Suit No. 317 of 2000 dated 8.2.1994 seeking declaration and injunction alleging that the suit land as per entry made in the jamabandi was owned and possessed by the owners whose name figure in Khewat Nos. 50, 51. 52, 54 and 55. The land was given on Dohli to defendant-respondents 8 to 14 several years go who were in possession as Dohlidars. Similarly, another piece of land owned by Shamlat deh measuring 6 kanals 1 marla was given on Dohli to defendant-respondents 8 to 14. Plaintiff-respondents 1 to 6 further alleged that defendant-respondents 8 to 14, without any legal right permanently alienated the suit land in favour of defendant-appellants and defendant-respondent 7 for a period of 99 years for a consideration of Rs. 3,10,000/- vide registered lease deed dated 20.8.1993. Seeking a declaration, the-plaintiff-respondents 1 to 6 asserted that the lease deed amounted to permanent alienation and the same was liable to be declared null and void. It was further prayed that plaintiff-respondents 1 to 6 and proforma defendant-respondents 17 to 32 were the co-sharers/co-owners of the same.

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the matter, we are of the view that Sewa Ram's case (supra) is correctly decided. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment were followed in another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Dharma v. Smt. Harbai, 1976 P.L.J. 617. This division Bench had followed the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Tirkha v, Dwarka Parshad, 1972 P.L.J. 614, who in turn had followed Sewa Ram's case (supra). We are of the opinion that all these three cases are correctly decided and lay down unequivocally that the sale, mortgage or any other alienation of Dohli tenure is void ab initio...."