IMPORTANT POINT
Registration--Requirement of--Agreement executed for--Tenancy relinquished for consideration of Rs.40,000/- --It required compulsory registration.
Handwriting Expert--Opinion of-- Both expert witnesses have given contradictory reports--Consequently no weight can be attached to the said reports.

Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Defendant no.1 Om Parkash Kataria, having lost in both the courts below, is in second appeal.

2. Suit was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff Kanwar Singh Kataria against defendant no.1-appellant and proforma respondents no.2 and 3. Judgment of the lower appellate court reveals that defendant no.2 had since died and first appeal was preferred by legal representatives of defendant no.2 along with defendant no.1, but in the instant second appeal, defendant no.2 himself has been impleaded as proforma respondent no.2, although as is apparent from the judgment of the lower appellate court, defendant-respondent no.2 has already died.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that he is tenant in the two disputed shops no.13 and 14 under defendant no.3 – Sri Gurgaon Gaushala Sabha. Plaintiff had purchased some other land from Chand Kaur etc. Defendant no.1 is son-in-law of said Chand Kaur, whereas defendant no.2 is friend of defendant no.1. Accordingly, on request of defendants no.1 and 2, the plaintiff allowed defendants no.1 and 2 to use the plaintiff’s office in the disputed shops without creating any obstruction in the business of the plaintiff himself as Property Dealer. Later on, the plaintiff being old and physically handicapped, could not go to the disputed shops on account of illness. Defendants no.1 and 2 claimed to have agreement dated 04.04.1994 allegedly executed by the plaintiff, but in fact, the said agreement is forged one. The plaintiff never executed the said agreement. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing defendants no.1 and 2 to stop using the disputed shops and to deliver vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff and also directing defendant no.3 to treat the plaintiff as its tenant.

4. Defendants no.1 and 2 broadly controverted the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that defendants no.1 and 2 were tenants in the disputed shops under defendant no.3 and were using the same since the year 1986. They sublet the disputed shops to plaintiff in the year 1986. Plaintiff, vide agreement dated 04.04.1994, gave possession of the disputed shops to defendants no.1 and 2. The said agreement has been executed by the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff gave the disputed shops to defendants no.1 and 2 on license. Various other pleas were also raised.

5. Defendant no.3 admitted that plaintiff was tenant under defendant no.3 in the disputed shops since the year 1982. Defendant no.3, however, pleaded that the plaintiff executed agreement dated 04.04.1994 and on his request, the disputed shops were rented out to defendants no.1 and 2 by defendant no.3 and now, defendants no.1 and 2 are tenants under defendant no.3 in the disputed shops. License by plaintiff in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 qua the disputed shops was denied. Various other pleas were also raised.

6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2006, decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendant no.1 and legal representatives of defendant no.2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.1 only has preferred the instant second appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

8. Both parties have examined handwriting experts regarding signatures of plaintiff on the impugned agreement. Expert witness examined by the plaintiff has stated that the said signatures are not of the plaintiff, whereas expert witness examined by defendants has opined that the said signatures are of the plaintiff. However, science of comparison of handwriting/signatures is weak science. Ordinarily, handwriting expert engaged by a party gives opinion in favour of said party. In the instant case also, same thing has happened. Both the expert witnesses have given contradictory reports. Consequently, not much weight can be attached to the said re