R.S.A. No. 4311 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4311 of 2008 Date of decision:6th August, 2009 Harsarup ......Appellant Versus Hari Singh through is LR's Mahender Singh and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhalla, J The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 20.12.2005 and 19.10.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar and the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing his suit and his appeal respectively. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land as a “Dolidar”. The appellant alleged that one Ram Singh son of Nanda Rajput, gave this land to his grandfather as a Dholi as recorded in mutation no. 1101, dated 18.09.1906. As the appellant was in government service, he gave this land, to one Pandit Shambhu Dayal for cultivation but to his surprise he discovered that the respondents have got sale deeds dated 5.12.1957, executed in their favour. Upon notice, the defendant-respondents filed a written statement, denying the existence of a “Dholi” in favour of the appellant’s grandfather. It was asserted that the appellant's forefathers mortgaged their land to Badridas son of Ganeshi Lal. The 1 R.S.A. No. 4311 of 2008 appellant’s father also mortgaged and thereafter, sold the land to Ram Kishan who sold the land to Shambu Dayal. After the demise of Shambu Dayal, a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs Rajpal, Suraj Bal and Chander Bal, on 11.5.1950 who sold the suit land to them by registered sale deeds. After framing issues and calling upon the parties to lead evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit, by holding that the appellant had failed to prove the existence of a Dholi, his ownership and possession as a “Dholidar” and that the revenue record does not relate to the suit land. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2007, the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, dismissed his appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the courts below. I have heard counsel for the appellant and considered the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant which read as follows:- “1. Whether the land in dispute can be sold with out the consent of the appellant who is in possession as a Dholidar? 2. Whether the Assistant Collector can change the mutation in absence of the appellant in favour of the respondents? 3. Whether the respondents are bonafide purchasers of the suit land?” As held by the courts below, the appellant has failed to prove his ownership, failed to prove that he is a Dolidar and failed to link the land with the suit property. The first question of law would 2 R.S.A. No. 4311 of 2008 have arisen only if, the appellant had proved that he is a Dholidar. In the absence of any evidence to hold that the appellant is or his ancestors were Dholidars, the first question of law does not arise for consideration. Similarly, the second question is irrelevant, as the respondents have purchased the property pursuant to sale deeds and therefore, the Assistant Collector was required to reflect these sale deeds by way of relevant mutations. The last question of law, is incomprehensible, as the respondents have purchased the suit land by way of registered sale deed. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 6th August, 2009 SKaushik 3