R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff Shri Lakhbir Singh has filed the present regular second appeal which has been directed against, the judgment and decree dated 8th June, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rup -nagar who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1996 passed by the trial Court which dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.
(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner: The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to demolish the disputed wall shown in letters CD in the site plan attached with plaint. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that he and the respondents, both residents of village Haveli Kalan, entered into an agreement on 21.3.1990, wherein the respondent admitted the existence of the street and also allowed the plaintiff the right to use the same as passage. They also permitted the plaintiff to open apertures in that street. This agreement was executed by them on receipt of Rs. 2000/ - from the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that he is entitled to use the street as the same has been made pucca by the Municipal Committee. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that the respondents have illegally raised disputed wall in the street about six months back with a view to prevent the plaintiff from using the same for passage and the apertures. Hence the suit.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. They denied the existence of any street in between their house and of the plaintiff. They also denied the execution of any agree - ment dated 21.3.1990 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant on receipt of Rs. 2000/ - and maintained that the alleged agreement is forged one. They further maintained that they were owners of Khasra No. 20/5/1 and they have constructed their house in that Khasra number and that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether defendant entered into an agreement dated 21.3.1990 with the plaintiff? If so its effect? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief. The parties were allowed to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the evidence, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1996, Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed the first appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar and the said appeal was also dismissed for the reasons given in para Nos. 9 to 13 of the said judgment which are reproduced hereunder: 9. The plea taken by the appellant is that in between his house and that of the respondents, there is a street which has been made pucca by the Municipal Committee, Ropar and that the respondents vide agreement dated 21.3.1990 (Ex.P.7) on receipt of Rs. 2,000/ - agreed to allow him to use the same for passage and for. opening of the apertures and, as such, the respondents had no right to raise the wall in dispute in the street. But no reliable and cogent evidence has been adduced by him to substantiate this plea. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to prove that the alleged street vestt. in the Municipal Committee, Ropar. No official from the Municipal Committee, Ropar has come forward to state so. No record of the Municipal Committee has been produced in this regard. No doubt one witness, namely, Gopal Krishan P.W.1 of the Municipal Committee has been produced but his evidence does not at all advance the plea of the appellant. According to this witness the respondents submitted plan of raising construction of the house on 4.5.1990 but the appellant on 95.1990 filed objection against the sanction of that plan and, therefore, Arjan Singh respondent filed an application Exhibit P2 for withdrawing that plan, he has produced copy of that plan Ex. P3. Thereafter that plan was returned to the respondents. He has also produced the copy of the objections Ex.P1 filed by the appellant in the Municipal Committee and copy of the application Ex.P4 filed by the appellant for obtaining copy of the plan submitted by the respondents for sanction. He has also produced copy of the application, Ex.P.5 which was filed by one Pritam Singh son of Sarwan Singh against the sanction of the site plan of the respondents. He has further stated that the drain was constructed by the Municipal Committee in front of the house of the respondents. But he has not uttered any word to the effect that the alleged street vests in the municipal Committee. No record in that regard had been also produced by him. In cross -examination he has rather admitted that it is a private path of which Datta Ram was originally owner and after his death, his sons i.e. the respondents are in possession. He has further clarified that the disputed passage was a private property of Datta Ram and after his death, is of the respondents who are his legal heirs and they are in possession of the same. His this admission is enough to falsify the plea of the appellant that the disputed property is a public street and vests in the municipal Committee. 10. The ocular testimony of appellant himself that the disputed property is a street which vests in the Municipal Committee can not be accepted as a gospel truth for want of corroboration from any other evidence. Moreover, in his statement, he himself has admitted that the disputed street bears Khasra No. 20/5/1 and the respondents are owners of this Khasra number. Even in the Jamabandi for the year 1983 -84 Ex.D.22 the respondents are recorded owners in possession of Khasra No. 20/5/1. For the evidence of Gopal Krishan PW.1 Clerk of the Municipal Committee, referred to above, it also stands proved that the disputed property is a private property of the respondents as earlier it was owned by the their predecessor Datta Ram and after his death they are in possession of the same. Being the private property of the respondents the appellant cannot claim any right to use the same as a passage or for opening apertures therein. He has got his independent entrance to his house from the road side, as is clear from his plan Ex. P.8. 11. The due execution of the agreement, Ex. P.7 propounded by the appellant, for claiming right to use the disputed property as passage and for opening apertures, also does not stand proved. His own ocular testimony and that of his witness Rajinder Singh, attesting witness, P.W. 3 regarding the execution of this agreement by the respondents, on receipt of Rs. 2000/ - for allowing him to use the disputed property as passage and for opening apertures, cannot at all be accepted as the same does not inspire any confidence. The agreement is typed on two pages. The alleged signatures and thumb impression of the respondents are only on the first page and while on the second page where the agreement concludes, there is no signatures or thumb -impression of any of the respondents. On that page there are signatures of Rajinder Singh and thumb impression of Bant Singh and that too undated. The agreement is typed one. The person from whom it was got typed has not been disclosed by the appellant or by his witness Rajinder Singh. The print of the first page of the agreement is dark, while of the second page is dim. No explanation has been offered by the appellants as to how it took place. The signatures of the person who typed the agreement and the place where it was typed, had not been indicated in the agreement. 12. Respondents Arjan Singh and Rattan Singh both have categorically denied the execution of this agreement. Rattan Singh had denied his signatures and while Arjan Singh has also not accepted his alleged thumb impression on it. The perusal of the agreement shows that it was allegedly signed by Mewa Singh, Chet Singh, Rattan Singh respondents and thumb marked by Karam Singh, Arjan and Sucha Singh respondents. There is no date under the signatures or thumb impressions of any of the respondents. Even word LTI or RTI had not been mentioned under the alleged thumb impressions of Karam Singh, Arjan Singh and Sucha Singh respondents. The respondents also got their signatures and alleged thumb impressions compared from the Document Expert, Devinder Parshad DW1. This expert compared their disputed signatures and thumb impressions with their standard signatures and thumb impressions on the vakalatnama written statement and gave his detailed report Ex, Dl. According to him, the disputed signatures of Mewa Singh, Chet Singh and Rattan Singh or the agreement do not tally with their standard signatures. Regarding thumb impression of Sucha Singh of the agreement, he has opined that it is doubly impressed, blurred and not clear from comparison. Similarly, regarding the disputed thumb impressions of Karam Singh and Arjan Singh, he has opined that these are not clear to fix up the identity when compared with the standard thumb impressions. His report remains unrebutted on the record as no Expert was produced by the appellant to falsify the same. 13. Thus, the execution of the agreement Ex. D -7 on the basis of which appellant has staked his right to use the disputed property as passage and for opening his apertures does not at all stand proved. Apart from this, the agreement is also inadmissible in evidence, as through this agreement the respondents allegedly agreed to transfer right in the immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/ - in favour of the appellant by allowing him its user as passage and for apertures. It required compulsory registration but being unregistered is a waste paper and no right on its basis can be claimed by the appellant." Still not satisfied, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff/appellant.;