JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)--This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 13.10.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for declaration and consequential relief filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant. By the suit the appellant/plaintiff who was the owner of the subject property being House No. 203, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, and who had executed a registered Gift Deed of the first floor and barsati of the property in favour of his sister/respondent no.1/defendant no.1, contended that though the Gift Deed was executed, but by this Gift Deed dated 23.11.2001 the appellant/plaintiff had not given proportionate rights in the land to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and therefore the addition of words to the Gift Deed of "proportionate land underneath" as found in third last line of page 3 of the Gift Deed since have been illegally added the same should be held as an illegal interpolation in the Gift Deed. In sum and substance, the appellant/plaintiff by the suit contended that though he did execute the Gift Deed in favour of his sister/respondent no.1/defendant no.1 but by the Gift Deed it was only intended to give the first floor and barsati floor to the sister/respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and it was not intended to give the sister/respondent no.1/defendant no.1 proportionate rights in the land.

2. The Gift Deed in this case has been proved as Ex.PW1/2. Pursuant to the Gift Deed dated 23.11.2001 the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 has transferred her rights received in the subject property to the defendant no.2 in the suit i.e respondent no.2 herein.

3. The contention of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, who filed the written statement, was that appellant/plaintiff is incorrectly pleading that there was an interpolation in third last line of page 3 of the Gift Deed because this addition of the words "proportionate land underneath" was made in the office and in presence of the Sub-Registrar and duly attested by the Sub-Registrar. It was also pleaded that in law whenever a person acquires any floors or flats in a property then such a person also automatically acquires proportionate rights in the land on which the floors/flats are situated.

4. After pleadings were complete the following issues were framed by the trial court:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief consequent to declaration? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of the parties particularly concerned Sub-Registrar? OPD

5. Relief. "

5. Evidence was led by the parties and these aspects are recorded in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment and which read as under:

"12. In evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW1 relied upon documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 as mentioned above and documents viz., (i) copy of Challan and acknowledgement issued by L&DO dated 22.12.1999 as Ex.PW1/1: (ii) copy of Gift Deed dated 23.11.2001 as Ex.PW1/2; (iii)copy of challan for payment of house tax dated 08.10.2001, 24.10.2002 and 17.12.2009 as Mark A, Mark B and Mark C respectively. PW1 was cross-examined.

13. Defendant no.1 examined herself as DW-1 vide affidavit Ex.DW1/A. DW1 was cross-examined."

6. The issue which is to be determined by this Court is the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the interpolation which is found in third last line of page 3 of the Gift Deed Ex.PW1/2 whether it is an illegal interpolation and because it is an illegal interpolation the same would not give proportionate rights in the land to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1.

7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has placed reliance upon Section 20 of the Registration Act, 1908 wi