JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - Yesterday, Sh. Sharma had put in appearance. He sought an adjournment and promised that he will argue the matter today. Today, Sh. Sharma states that he has no instructions to argue the matter. 2. Be that as it may, it has been noted that earlier on many occasions, none had put in appearance on behalf of the appellants, under these circumstances, this appeal could have been dismissed for non-prosecution. However, with the assistance of counsel for the respondents, we have gone through the record and intend to pass an order on merits. 3. This appeal has been filed against concurrent findings of the Courts below. In the appeal, no law point has been raised. Be that as it may, from the record, it is apparent that respondents No. 3 to 24 had filed a suit for permanent injunction and also for possession of the land measuring 7 kanal 9 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Shahpur, District Gurgaon. It was their case that their ancestors had given the property in question to the ancestors of the appellants as Dholi for rendering religious services by them i.e. performing ceremonies as pandits at the time of marriages and on other occasions. It was their further case that with the passage of time, the appellants/defendants had stopped to perform their duties as pandits, as such, they are not entitled to possess the land in dispute. It was further stated that none of the defendants is dependent upon the agricultural income earned out of the property in question and they are settled at different places and earning their livelihood. 4. The suit was contested by the appellants on various grounds. It was their specific stand that the land was given by way of gift and it has become their absolute property. The trial Court, after analysing the evidence on record, gave a specific finding that the land was given to the ancestors of the appellants as dholidars for the services rendered by them. It was also found, as a matter of fact, that the appellants had stopped to perform duties as pandits and are not entitled to claim the land in question. It has also come on record that the appellants had given possession of the disputed land, to respondent No. 1 under a lease for 99 years. It was also found, as a matter of fact, that the appellants had stopped to perform duties as pandits and are not entitled to claim the land in question. It has also come on record that the appellants had given possession of the disputed land, to respondent No. 1 under a lease for 99 years. The lease was also held invalid by the trial Court. Appellants went in Appeal, which was dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal. 5. At the time of arguments, Sh. Yadav, by placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dharam Vir vs. Bahadur Singh and another, [2007(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 167] : 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 217, argued that the suit of the respondents was rightly decreed by the Courts below. 6. After hearing Sh. Yadav and Sh. Vij, counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied that the case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in the case of Dharam Vir (supra). A similar controversy regarding rights of the dholidars on the land held by them as dholi was involved in the case cited. The Division Bench of this Court, after analyzing the entire case on subject, has observed as under:- (i) The ‘dohli’ tenure may be a rent-free grant for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine or to a person for a religious purpose and the grant continues till the holder carries out the duties of his office and can be terminated on failure to carry out the said duties as held in Sewa Ram’s case (supra). ILR 2 Lahore 313: AIR 1922 Lahore 326 relied. (ii) ‘Dohlidar’ may be a landowner qua his tenant in the situation mentioned in Baba Badri Dass’s case (supra). 1982 (1) ILR 491 relied. (iii) ‘Dohlidar’ may be an owner if ‘dohli’ is in the nature of gift and at the time of creating ‘dohli’, no condition for use of the dohlil and for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine or other religious purpose is imposed, as noticed in judgments of this Court in Baba Badri Dass case, 1982 (1) ILR 491 and Dhani Ram’s case (supra) (1984 PLJ 234). (iv) If a ‘dohli’ is held to be a grant for a religious purpose, its management, alienability and succession will not be governed by law of management, alienability or succession of an individual’s property but by succession, management or alienation of a religious property.” 7. In the present case, it has come on record that land in question was given to the ancestors of the appellants as dholi in lieu of services rendered by them. It has also come on record that the appellants have ceased to perform the duties, for which the land was given to their ancestors. In view of above, we feel that no case is made out for interference by this Court. Dismissed. —————————