R.S.A. No. 3025 of 2003 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3025 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.4.2009 Ram Niwas & others .......... Appellants Versus Manohar Lal & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 13.3.2003 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiffs / appellant for declaration, that they have been occupying the suit land, as Dholidars and further that defendants / respondent have no right or interest stands dismissed. The plaintiff / appellants had further claimed that decree suffered by defendant No.2 dated 26.9.1981 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of Dholi rights pertaining to the suit land, and the, revenue entries, in respect of the suit land, were also not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was contested. The learned courts below dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to bring on record, any evidence showing their rights as Dholidar, as no R.S.A. No. 3025 of 2003 2 documentary evidence by way of revenue record was produced. The learned Court further held, that as the plaintiff / appellants failed to show any relationship with defendant No.2, thus had no locus standi to challenge the decree suffered by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Courts below by raising the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court :- 1. Whether Dholi rights could be transferred by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sittal Dass and another Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 1989 PLJ 148 to contend that Dholi rights cannot be alienated by a Dholidar in favour of a third party. Though, the question of law cannot be disputed, but it does not arise in the present case. The plaintiffs have failed to prove, that they are Dholidar by producing the revenue record, nor any evidence was led to prove relationship, with defendant No.2 to have locus standi to challenge the alienation made by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. The substantial question of law, therefore, does need to be considered in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed in limine. 16.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE