1. An unregistered document can be admitted in evidence to prove an admission of a party with regard to the character of the property, even though it cannot be used to affect an immovable property or create a mortgage. 2. A co-owner of an immovable property is entitled to an injunction to restrain the other co-owner from interfering with their right of possession, but the court may consider the circumstances of each case and award compensation instead of an injunction.

N. M. KASLIWAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for injunction dismissed by both the lower courts. The controversy now left to be determined in this second appeal relates to a ravish existing in-front of the house of the defendant on the first floor towards the north stretching from west to east as shown with letters "x-Y in the site plan Ex. 1 annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff had come forward with a case in the plaint that the ravish was joint one of the parties. The plaintiffs entered the ravish through a door and passed and repassed through it by passage to the staircase facing east, which leads to the chowk. The alternative case set up by the plaintiffs was that if this ravish was not held jointly owned and possessed by the parties then the plaintiffs had acquired a right of casement to pass and re-pass through the ravish as they had acquired this right continuously without interruption for the last 30 years. The case of the contesting defendants -- respondent Abdul Razak was that the disputed ravish was exclu-sivly owned and possessed by him. He emphatically denied that the defendant ever used this ravish. The trial court had framed six issued, but I will only mention issues Nos. 1 and 5 which are necessary for the determination of this appeal: (Hindi matter omitted) The trial court found that the plaintiff Inder Lal, P. W. 1 was unable to state clearly the period since when he was using the ravish for passing and repassing. As regards the documents Ex. 4 and Ex. 5, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff was unable to state clearly in his statement how these two documents proved the ravish to be joint. Learned trial court also took into consideration the inspection note made by his predecessor in office, from which it was clear that in order to reach the disputed ravish, it was necessary to pass through an ikdhara belonging to the defendant. Learned trial court also found that the way leading to the joint ravish through eastern staircase was not the ordinary and easily approachable way, but there was other alternative and easy way to go to the properties of the plaintiffs. Learned trial court thus held that the ravish was not proved to be a joint property and decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs. As regards issue No. 5, learned trial court held that the plaintiff in his suit has shown his right on the ravish on the basis of ownership, but the plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that he was using the ravish under the ease-mentary right, by treating the ravish as belonging to the defendant. Learned trial court thus decided issue No. 5 also against the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court filed an appeal, which came up for consideration before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City. Strong reliance was placed on documents Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 and it was contended that the aforesaid documents clearly and unambiguously proved that the ravish was a joint one since the time the Haweli was built and that the plaintiffs used to come through this ravish to their house by ascending the staircase which lies towards the left to the entrance of the haveli facing east. Reliance was also placed on documents Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-2. If was also contended that even the documents Ex. A-l and Ex. A-2 adduced by the defendant, supported the contention of the plaintiff that the ravish was also joint and was used as such. The learned Additional District Judge as regards Ex. 4 of March 1890 purporting to have been executed as mortgage by fine Sualal in favour of Khuda Bux and Hasan etc. , forefathers of the defendants, observed that this document was unregistered and was not an original one. It was further observed that had this document been produced as original, it would have carried some weight and its recital would have been taken into consideration, even though the deed was unregistered, but as it was a copy of the original, no no