Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan learned Counsel for the appellant. The present appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of the Court below decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction within a period of two months. The Plaintiffs brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants who are tenant on ground-floor to raise construction on the first floor. The suit was defended on the pleas; inter alia that the husband of the Plaintiff No. 1 executed a deed permitting the tenant to raise construction on the first - floor of the building. Reliance was placed by the tenant on the two documents, genuineness and execution of which were denied by the plaintiff respondents. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit on the finding that the said two documents are not admissible in evidence for the simple reason that these documents were required to be registered being lease-deed for a period more than one year. The second ground for not accepting these two documents is that admittedly there are cuttings in the said documents. Challenging these findings present Second appeal at the instance of defendants has been filed.
(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for the appellants I do not find any force in appeal. It was contended by Sri Shashi Nandan learned Counsel for the appellant that even if the document is required to be registered, can be looked into if it is not registered for collateral purposes. Elaborating his argument-learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as it relates to permission to raise construction, reliance could be placed on the said document. The documents in-question contain number of cuttings. Admittedly no party has initiated those cuttings. One Sri Shri Prakash Gupta. Advocate, was examined on behalf of the defendants to prove the cuttings in the documents. In cross-examination he has admitted that he did not initial these cuttings. He has also not put signatures as the deed writer the document. The Courts below after taking into consideration the statement of Sri Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate, came to the conclusion that there are material alteration in the documents and, as such, no reliance can be placed upon them. I find no error in the judgment of the Courts below. Supreme Court in Loon Karan Sethia v. Evan E. Jhon, reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC 336 has held that making of material alteration without consent of the parties in the document is exactly the same as that of cancelling the document. The material alteration is one which varies the rights, liabilities on legal position of the party as ascertained by the deed or otherwise varies legal effect of the instrument or reduced certainly to some provision which was originally un-ascertained and, as such void or which may otherwise prejudice-a party found by the deed as originally executed. To my mind the controversy in hand is covered by the pronouncement of Supreme Court. Indisputably, of the lease term the original deed, is for 99 years, which has been scored out by red ink and there is no initial of any person authenticating the said cuttings. The effect of scoring the said terms is that lease is for uncertain period. Other terms have also been second out. It cannot be disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that by scoring out certain terms in the deed it materially affects the documents in question. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed under Order XU, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. Appeal dismissed.;