IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6621-C of 2007 & RSA No.2333 of 2007 Decided on : 01.09.2009 Brij Mohan ... Appellant versus Om Parkash & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute. The brief facts of the case are that Jage Ram was a Dohlidar of certain land. On his death in 1975, the land was mutated in favour of the respondent and the said mutation was given effect in the subsequent revenue record showing the respondent in possession. The appellant claimed that in 1973 the land had been given to him on 99 years lease by Jage Ram. The courts below on fact held that the lease in favour of the appellant was not proved. It was further held that being Dholi property, the same could not be alienated. The following questions have been proposed: RSA No.2333 of 2007 -2- i) Whether the Courts below fell in error in appreciating the difference between the meaning of the terms 'Dohlidar' and the word 'Dohlidar' and thus committed an error of law? ii)Whether a collateral of a Dohlidar is not entitled to inherit the Dohli rights and any mutation so sanctioned is wholly illegal and void and the said person does not get any right under such mutation? iii)Whether when plaintiff is in unauthorised and illegal possession of the suit land can any decree of permanent injunction be granted in his favour as against a person who had a valid title on the land? iv)Whether a mutation does not create any title or right in the land? v)Whether the claim of a lessee to the land would be fully legal and valid against a collateral of the Dohlidar? vi)Whether it is only the owner of the Dohli land who could contemplate any action against the lessor of the Dohlidar and none else? vii)Whether a certified copy of the lease deed is a public document and stands proved by the statement of deed writer and the statement of the registration clerk and proved from the copy maintained in the office of Sub-Registrar? RSA No.2333 of 2007 -3- No arguments have been addressed to question No.(i). As regards questions No.(ii) & (vi) both the Courts below have rightly held that whether the respondent could not inherit the Dohli tenure, was a matter between him and the original owners of the land. Questions No.(iii), (iv), (v) & (vii) are related since they deal with the factual aspect of the lease in favour of the appellant as well as legal competence of Jage Ram to enter into such an agreement. In the present case as noticed above, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the lease of the appellant was not proved. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded on these issues are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render them perverse as to be liable to interference under Section 100 of CPC. Once it is held that lease in favour of the appellant was not proved, the second legal question regarding the capacity of Jage Ram to enter into any such agreement becomes purely academic. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. September 01, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE