RSA No. 636 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 636 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 08, 2009 Pyare Lal ...... Appellant Versus Smt. Premwati etc. ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This is an appeal against concurrent judgments of the Courts below holding that the respondent/sister is entitled to inherit Dohlidari rights and, to that extent dismissing the suit of the appellant/brother. Learned counsel has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the daughter and widow have any right to inherit the dohli property in the presence of male heirs? ii) Whether a person can be a dohlidar specifically when he is not serving he purposes of dohli tenure? iii) Whether the application for additional evidence can be RSA No. 636 of 2006 2 dismissed only on the ground that the appellant has not pleaded in the application that the documents were not in his notice earlier? iv) Whether the finding of the learned courts below is not perverse? During arguments, however, learned counsel has addressed only questions No. (i) and (ii). As regards question No (ii) the same is a pure question of fact and learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or on such a misreading of the evidence that the said findings can be rendered to be perverse. As regards question No.(i) learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of this Court in Lakshmi Chand v. Basanti alias Kailash reported as 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 298 held as follows:- “Lastly, it was urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff being a female could not inherit the dohlidari rights. He referred to some paragraphs from the Punjab settlement Manual by Sir James M. Douie which were noticed by the learned Judges in Baba Badi Dass's case (supra) to contend that a Dohlidar is a malik kabza and that dohli is a tenure which is granted on the specific condition that the grantee would render services in lieu thereof and that the plaintiff being a female residing in a different village could not render those services. The argument is that the services can be rendered only by the sons who are residing in the village and if the females do not render services the RSA No. 636 of 2006 3 tenure is likely to revert back to the original owner. According to the counsel,it should be inferred that only the males can inherit the dohli tenure and not the females. This contention appears to me to be without any merit. Whatever be the nature of a dohli tenure, it is certainly a right in property which will be inherited by the heirs on the death of the Dohlidar and the succession will take place in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff who is the daughter of Chiranjit Lal is entitled to succeed to his estate on his death being a class I heir. I am, therefore, in agreement with the findings of the courts below that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the estate of Chiranji Lal deceased. In Trikha's case (supra),it was Smt. Kasturi daughter of Kishan Jiwan who succeeded to the dohli tenure.” I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed therein. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show me any contrary judgment. In the circumstances I decide question No. (i) against the appellant and consequently dismiss the appeal, however, with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 08, 2009 sunita