The main legal point established is that dohlidari rights cannot be alienated and that the female heirs have the right to inherit the dohlidari rights of the father.

N.K. Sodhi, J. - the dispute herein is between the brothers, on the one hand, and the sisters, on the other. Chiranji Lal, father of the parties, was a Dohlidar to the extent of one-half share in the land in dispute. Basanti @ Kailash plaintiff and Chanderpati defendant No. 4 are the daughters of Chiranji Lal whereas Lakshmi Chand and Karan Singh are his sons. On the basis of a family partition and settlement the father (Chiranji Lal) suffered a decree on 20.7.1976 in favour of his two sons and the two sisters were deprived of their right of succession to the estate of Chiranji Lal. Basanti filed a suit out of which the present appeal has arisen challenging the aforesaid decree on the ground that dohlidari rights in the land could not be alienated by her father and as such the decree would be void ab initio and would not affect her rights and those of Chanderpati who was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the suit. Lakshmi Chand and Karan Singh sons of Chiranji Lal were arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2. Chiranji Lal was also arrayed as a defendant in the suit. The suit was contested by Chiranji Lal and also by his two sons. Chiranji Lal died during the pendency of the suit and his name was thereafter deleted. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The fact that Chiranji Lal held dohlidari rights in the suit land was admitted. The decree was sought to be justified on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 who were females had no right to succeed to the dohlidari rights of Chiranji Lal. It was denied that the decree amounts to alienation. It was also pleaded that the suit was beyond limitation. The trial Court framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the impugned decree is illegal, void and collusive ? If so, the effect thereof ?

2. Whether the impugned decree amounts to an alienation ? If so, the effect thereof ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit ? OPP

5. Whether the suit is bad for the misjoinder of parties and causes of action ? OPD

6. Relief."

On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the contesting defendants. It was held that dohlidari rights could not be alienated and that the impugned decree amounted to alienation of those rights and as such it was void and inoperative as against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the suit was within limitation. It was also held the plaintiff had a locus standi to file the suit. Consequently, the suit was decreed and the plaintiff was granted a decree for joint possession to the extent of one-fourth share out of the interest held by Chiranji Lal in the suit property. In appeal, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal by the defendants.

2. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are : (i) whether the decree dated 20.7.1976 amounts to alienation of dohlidari rights and whether such rights could be alienated and (ii) whether the plaintiff being a female could inherit the dohlidari rights of the father.

3. As regards the first question, it is by now settled that dohlidari rights cannot be alienated. It was so held by a learned single Judge in Tirkha and others v. Dwarka Parshad and another, 1972 PLJ 614 wherein reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Sewa Ram v. Udegir, AIR 1922 Lahore 126 and it was observed as under :-

"There is a world of difference between a void and a voidable transaction. A void transaction is non est whereas a voidable transaction is good so long as it stands, but becomes void when it is impeached by the person who has a right to get the transaction declared void. The observations of the learned Chief Justice are clear on the point that the alienation of dholi tenure is void ab initio. If