RSA No.5018 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5018 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 21.12.2010. Smt. Shanti and others .....Appellants Versus Kawar Lal and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs are in second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Plaintiffs are widow and sons of Balbir, who was Dohlidar of the suit land measuring 14 kanals 3 marlas. The suit land is recorded in the ownership of Gram Panchayat in the revenue record. The plaintiffs' case is that their predecessor Balbir Singh without any authority leased out the suit land to defendant Jai Narain for 99 years since kharif 1985 crop till Rabi 2084 vide registered lease deed dated 22.08.1985. The said lease deed has been challenged in the suit. It is alleged that the lease for 99 years amounts to permanent alienation, but Balbir Singh as Dohlidar had no right to alienate the suit land permanently. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought declaration that the aforesaid lease deed in favour of defendant-Jai Narain (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal representatives) is illegal and void. Plaintiffs also sought decree for possession of the suit land. RSA No.5018 of 2010 (O & M) -2- Defendants inter alia pleaded that plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land or with Dohli rights in it. The suit land was given as Dohlidar for Dera and Dholi rights devolved from Guru to Chela and not by natural inheritance. Consequently, plaintiffs have not inherited the Dohli rights from Balbir Singh and plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is also alleged that the impugned lease deed is legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2008 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was not condition of Sharat-Wazib-Ul-Arz that Dohli rights would devolve from Guru to Chela. It was also contended that impugned lease deed for 99 years amounts to permanent alienation for which Dohlidar Balbir singh (predecessor of the plaintiffs) had no right. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein. Sharat-Wazib-Ul-Arz referred to by counsel for the appellants has not been produced in evidence and, therefore, the contention is beyond pleadings and evidence and cannot be accepted. There is no material on record to substantiate the said contention. On the contrary, on the basis of evidence on record, RSA No.5018 of 2010 (O & M) -3- Courts below have come to concurrent finding of fact that Dohli rights in the suit land devolved from Guru to Chela successively and in the same chain, Balbir Singh had also inherited Dohli rights as Chela of Ram Chander. It is thus manifest that Balbir Singh had no personal right, title or interest in Dohli rights in the suit land and consequently, plaintiffs being natural heirs of Balbir Singh (being his widow and sons) could not inherit Dohli rights in the suit land from Balbir Singh. Consequently, plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the same. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the appellants contended that Balbir Singh left behind no Chela and, therefore, Dohli rights in the suit land have been inherited by the plaintiffs on the death of Balbir Singh. The contention is untenable. If Balbir Singh had not left behind any Chela to inherit Dohli rights in the suit land, Dohli of the suit land would come to an end and the suit land would revert to the owner. In fact the trial Court has given liberty to the Gram Panchayat to initiate proceedings against the defendants to recover possession of the suit land. The said liberty also meets the contention of the appellants that the impugned lease deed is illegal, null and void. In any case, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land. They have not inherited Dohli rights in the suit land from Balbir Singh. In addition to the aforesaid, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is also hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit was filed on 06.10.2004 to challenge registered lease deed dated 22.08.1985. The suit was thus filed more than 19 years after the execution of the lease deed. The suit has, therefore, been rightly held by the Courts below to be barred by limitation. Contention of counsel for the RSA No.5018 of 2010 (O & M) -4- appellants that lease deed being void could be challenged at any time cannot be accepted because even void orders or documents have to be challenged within limitation period. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is found to be lacking any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 21.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE