JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs on the land in question and further restraining the defendants from digging the earth from the plot in question. The plaintiffs alleged that they had executed a registered sale deed dated 3.9.1992 for a period of 16 years for a sum of Rs. 1 lac in favour of the defendants with regard to the eastern portion of the plot No. 228, for the purpose of running a brick kiln. It was alleged, that the defendants had also taken the adjoining land, for the same purpose, from other persons and now was forcefully interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs on the western portion of plot No. 228 and was threatening to dig up the earth. The defendants, on the other hand, submitted that apart from the registered sale deed dated 3.9.2002, the plaintiffs had executed three more instruments and, by paper No. 31C, the plaintiffs had executed an agreement in favour of the defendant for the remaining portion of plot No. 228 for a sum of Rs. 1,12,000 for digging the earth upto six feet. The defendants contended that based on this agreement, possession was given by the plaintiffs to the defendants and, on that basis, the defendant-petitioners are in possession and are also digging up the earth.
2. The trial court rejected the application for a grant of temporary injunction holding that the plaintiffs had placed their signatures on paper No. 31C and other documents and also held that since the defendants were in possession of the eastern portion of the plot and were also digging up the earth, no injunction could be granted to the plaintiffs. The trial court further held that even though the agreement was required to be registered, nonetheless, the said document could still be considered for collateral purpose and that the conduct of the plaintiffs was such that the plaintiffs were not entitled for a grant of an injunction. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was allowed and the appellate court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land and further restrained the defendants from cutting the trees standing on the plot in question and from damaging the boring located on the disputed land till the final disposal of the suit.
3. The defendants-petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid injunction, has filed the present writ petition.
4. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs had executed an unregistered agreement and, on that basis the petitioners came into possession and had started digging up the earth. The plaintiffs therefore, acquiesced to the said agreement. Consequently, no injunction could be granted in view of Section 41(g) of the Specific Relief Act, which stipulated that an injunction could not be granted to prevent a continuing breach to which the plaintiffs had acquiesced in it. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that paper No. 31C was not required to be registered as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., which provided that all other lease of immovable property could be made either by a registered instrument or by an agreement oral or accompanied by a delivery of possession. The learned Counsel further submitted in the alternative that assuming that the document was required to be registered as per Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the said document could still be received as evidence for collateral purpose. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the signatures on paper No. 31C matched with the signatures of the plaintiffs and, therefore the plaintiffs, had infact, executed the said document and on that basis, the defendants had taken the possession of the land in question. Consequently, the plaintiffs had acquiesced in the matter and was prevented from applying for an injunction, as contemplated under Section 41(g) of the Specific Relief Act.
6. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision in Anuruddhavir Singh v. Singh Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 1993 AWC 207 and in Mattapalli Chelamayya (dead) by his legal representatives and Anr. v. Mattapalli Venkataratnam (dead) by his legal representatives and Anr. . The learned Counsel further submitted that the Court was the final authority to compare the signatures of the plaintiff on the disputed documents and having found that the plaintiff had put his signatures on the agreement, the Court could not have issued an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in Balkrishna Das Agarwal v. Smt. Radha Devi and Ors. ; Sri Chand v. Smt Ramrati Devi and Anr. and in Amirbibi and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad .
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs had specifically denied the execution of the document paper No. 31C and had also denied their signatures and contended that the provision of Section 41(g) of the Specific Relief Act was not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the value of the property as per the document (paper No. 31C) was admittedly, more than Rs. 100 and, therefore the said document was compulsorily required to be registered under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, and therefore, the said document could not be received as evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, nor could it be used as for any collateral purpose since the said document created a right, assignment, etc., in the immovable property. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs placed reliance in the decision in Ratan Lal and Ors. v. Hari Shanker and Ors. . The learned Counsel further submitted that a tresspass had taken place and that the Amin's report did not indicate that the possession of the defendant on the disputed plot and the digging of the earth had taken place prior to the filing of the suit and pursuant to the disputed document (paper No. 31C). Consequently, on the basis of a tresspass the plaintiffs could not be denied the grant of a temporary injunction. The learned Counsel further submitted that Section 73 of the Evidence Act, had no application at this stage and in support of the submission relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram ; Smt Ram Pyari v. IInd Additional District Judge, Azamgarh and Ors. : 1989 (1) AWC 472 and Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a document (paper No. 31C) and contended that it was on the basis of this document that he had been given the possession of the land and a right to dig up the earth upto 6 feet. A perusal of this document (paper No. 31C) indicates that it was compulsorily required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Consequently, prima facie, it appears that Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, has no application. In view of the fact that the document (paper No. 31C) was required to be compulsorily registered, the said document could not be received as evidence for collateral purpose. Section 49 of the Registration Act, indicates, that a document which is required to be registered, cannot be received as evidence of any transaction effecting such property or conferring such power to get it received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by a registered instrument. The present case is not a suit for specific performance and, therefore such a document cannot be received as evidence.
9. In my opinion, the said document cannot be considered even for collateral purpose. An unregistered document may be admissible for collateral purpose for proving the nature and character of possession, but the same cannot be admitted for showing the terms and conditions of the contract for collateral purpose within the meaning of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. The collateral purpose as indicated in the proviso to Section 49 of the Act has a limited scope and meaning. The document cannot be used for the purpose that it created or declared or assigned or extinguished a right in an immovable property. Since, the document creates a right, title or interest, the same cannot be received as evidence to show the declaration of a right, title or assignment.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the document (paper No. 31C) could be considered by the Court for collateral purpose is erroneous. Much emphasis was given upon the findings of the trial court that the signatures on the disputed document was that of the plaintiffs and, therefore, it led to an irresistible conclusion that the document had infact, been executed by fhe plaintiffs. In my opinion, the findings of the trial court on this aspect was only tentative in nature and could not be taken as conclusive proof of the fact that the plaintiffs had put their signatures on the disputed documents. The question whether the document (paper No. 31C) had been executed by the plaintiffs and whether they had placed their signatures on it, would be subject to evidence, and it would be premature to adjudicate on this question at this stage.
11. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in question. The plaintiffs have specifically denied the document (paper No. 31C). The said document, admittedly, creates a right/assignment in favour of the defendants. The said document was required to be compulsorily registered which has not been done and, therefore it is inadmissible in evidence. No suit for specific performance has been filed by the defendant for the enforcement of that contract. Consequently, the plaintiffs, having proved that they are the bhumidhars of the disputed plot, had made out a prima facie case for a grant of an injunction. A temporary injunction could be granted where it appears prima facie, that the property was in danger of being damaged or being alienated by any party to the suit. In the present case, the plaintiff was being threatened of its possession and if the earth was removed, the land would be wasted and damaged which will cause irreparable loss. Therefore, the plaintiff had not only made out a prima facie case, but the balance of convenience and irreparable loss was also in their favour. Since, all the three ingredients were present, the appellate court was justified in issuing a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The appellate order does not suffer from any error of law. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost.