Appeal against decree dismissing suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming Dholidari rights. Court affirmed lower courts' findings that appellants failed to prove transfer of rights and that they could not claim exclusion based solely on defendants' presence or absence.
Appeal dismissed; no relief granted to appellants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.1835 of 2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1835 of 2006 Date of decision: 10.9.2008
Satbir Sharma and others
......Appellants
Versus
Bhagat Ram and others
......Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the appellants.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J .
RSA No.1835 of 2006
2
performing all the religious ceremonies to the owners of the land in question and the plaintiffs have never performed such duties. In addition, it was also pleaded that rather it is the plaintiffs who intend to raise illegal construction upon the suit property thereby changing the nature of the property and for these reasons it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiffs examined two witnesses in support of their case who deposed about continuous possession of the plaintiffs as Dholidars upon the suit property who were performing the religious ceremonies thereupon. It is relevant to mention that the defendants opted not to come present to contest the claim of the plaintiffs and hence, were proceeded against ex parte. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2004.
RSA No.1835 of 2006
3
that the appellants were entitled to the decree, as prayed for, as the defendants in the suit either did not contest the same on account of having made the statement to the effect that they do not want to defend the suit or were proceeded against ex parte. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, once this fact is available on the record the learned Lower Appellate Court on the basis of the material available on record ought to have decreed the suit.
4
RSA No.1835 of 2006
alienate the whole land nor he can be considered as a tenant and even if the plea of the plaintiff is accepted that defendants No.1 to 7 had left the village 80 years back, yet the plaintiffs cannot be held to be owners of those Dholi rights of defendants and a finding cannot be given that defendants No.1 to 7 have relinquished their Dholidar rights in the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs, as in that eventuality, the land qua share of defendants No.1 to 7 will revert back to its owners.
September 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether appellants proved entitlement to permanent injunction and possession despite finding that transfer of rights by defendants No. 1 to 7 was not established.
Whether defendants operating ex parte justified decreeing the suit as prayer by plaintiffs relied on their procedural weakness.
Whether efficiency of Dholidar possession allows exclusion of other co-sharers from relief.
Satbir Sharma and others
Bhagat Ram and others
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
