An unregistered agreement creating rights exceeding Rs. 100 is unenforceable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act; thus, the plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction was rightly dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 07.04.2005 and 30.10.2007 passed by the Courts below whereby, suit for mandatory injunction filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff No.1 was dismissed by the Courts below.

2. Briefly stating, the appellant being plaintiff No.1 along with one Iqbal Singh filed a suit for mandatory injunction with the following prayer clause:-

“Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Defendants from removing the encroachment by demolishing the Bore and cutting guava trees planted in Rasta marked A. B. C. D. measuring 2 Gathas in width and 36 Gathas in length, carved out in Khewat/Khatauni 84/135, Khasra No. 10// 1min, as shown in site plan attached, situated in the area of villa, Khairabad, HB No. 52, Tehsil and Distt. Ropar, as per fard Jamabandi for the year of 1988-89, vide agreement Deed dated 13-3-88, between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, and for recovery of Rs. 40000 / - i.e. Rs. 20,00%-for each of the plaintiffs for violation of mandatory conditions as laid down in the agreement Deed dated 13-3-1988.”

3. As per the plaint, appellant-plaintiff No.1 claimed himself to be owner in possession of land forming part of Khewat Khatauni No.89-141 Khasra Nos.10//9/2(3-18), and 10//9/6/1(4-0) in the area of Village Khairabad Hadbast No.62, Tehsil and District Ropar. It was further pleaded that plaintiff No.2, namely, Iqbal Singh owned land comprised in Khasra No.10/10 (8-0) whereas, respondent No.1- defendant No.1 owned land forming part of Khasra No.10// 1 min and 10//8/1.

4. Further, it was pleaded that all the aforementioned 3 parcels of land had no ‘rasta’ and accordingly, an agreement dated 13.03.1988 was executed between the parties whereby, a passage measuring 2 gathas in width and 36 gathas in length forming part of Khasra Nos. 10//1 min, 9/2 and 10 was left –carved out. The plaintiffs also pleaded that the aforementioned ‘rasta’ remained under utilization by the owners under the agreement dated 13.03.1988, however, some time back, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 transferred her land in favour of her son Kehar Singh-respondent No.2-defendant No.2 on 10.02.1995 and thereafter, he has got the entries in the revenue records changed as ‘gair mumkin tubewell’ and blocked the passage/rasta. Hence, the suit.

5. Upon appearance, separate written statements were filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Primarily, it was pleaded that the agreement dated 13.03.1988 was a forged and fabricated document. Besides, the value of the property in dispute being more than Rs.100/-, the document dated 13.03.1988 required registration and in the absence thereof, it created no right, title or interest in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs. Replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff while reiterating the stand taken in the plaint.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. “Whether the defendant No. 1 had left the rasta Marked ABCD measuring 2 gathas in witdth and 36 gathas in length? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has left Rasta measuring 2 gathas from land upto the length of 80 gathas in Kh. No. 10//9/2 and 10//10 as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the defendants have dug a tube-well in the passage and planted guava trees in the passage and caused the obstruction? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. ⁠Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present sui