JUDGMENT : Anil Sharma, J.:- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff -appellant under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8/4/2005 passed by learned District judge, Datia in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/05 whereby the Judgment and decree dated 13/11/1996 passed by learned First Civil Judge. Class-I, Datia in Civil Suit No. 69-A/96 has been confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff- appellant has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit land survey no. 1453/2/1 area 2 acre which was gifted by Devisingh to Parvat Singh (father of plaintiff) in the year 1958 in the name of defendant No. 1 - Ramkishan, who is elder son of Parvat Singh. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the above suit land remained in joint possession of Parvat Singh, Plaintiff and defendants No. 1, 2, and 3. Thereafter, in the year 1967, an oral partition took place between plaintiff and defendants No 1, 2, 3 (A) and 3 (C). Defendant No. 1 also executed a receipt of partition. In the year 1984, defendants No. 2 and 3 released their share orally in favour of plaintiff, and defendant No. 1 has also left the place. Thereafter plaintiff came into possession of whole of the Suit, land. In the municipal records also, name of plaintiffs father Parvat Singli was recorded and after his death, plaintiff is paying the house tax. So the defendant No, 1 is estopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs father. Further on the basis of gift deed, name of defendant No. 1 was mutated in the record and due to attempts by the defendant No. 1 in the year 1989 to sell out the suit land, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 3. The defendant No. 1 in his written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that suit land was gifted to him and he is having the possession over the suit land. It is further alleged that plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 are acting in collusion to grab the suit land owned by defendant No. 1. No receipt of partition was ever executed by the defendant No. 1. 4. Defendants No. 2 and 3 in their written statement admitted the allegations made in the plaint. 5. It is further alleged that plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 are acting in collusion to grab the suit land owned by defendant No. 1. No receipt of partition was ever executed by the defendant No. 1. 4. Defendants No. 2 and 3 in their written statement admitted the allegations made in the plaint. 5. Learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and appreciating the same, dismissed the suit by holding that it is not proved that plaintiff is having any title over the suit land. The appeal preferred by plaintiff was also dismissed on the ground that plaintiff could not prove that suit land was given to the Parvat Singh, therefore, plaintiff has no title over any part of the suit land. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of both the Courts below plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 6. The appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that learned lower appellate Court failed to consider that application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC was submitted by both the parties and thumb impression of defendant No. 1 was also marked on the application for compromise and burden of disproving or conforming the same lies on the defendant No, 1. The findings of both the Courts below are perverse. 7. This Court vide its order dated 22/02/2010 admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether learned two Courts below erred in substantial error of law without giving any finding as to whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his share in the suit property? 2. Despite the suit for injunction of plaintiff has been dismissed, still he is entitled for declaration of his share being co-owner in the suit property? If yes, whether learned two Courts below erred in substantial error of law in not decreeing the suit of plaintiff in that regard although plaintiff has sought such type of relief in his plaint? 3. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances the application alleged to be under Order X Rule 2 read with Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC has been rightly rejected by the learned First Appellate Court?" AS REGARD SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NOS. 1 AND 2:- 8. Substantial questions No. 1 and 2 relate to title of plaintiff and relief of declaring his share on the basis of co-ownership of the suit property. 9. 1 AND 2:- 8. Substantial questions No. 1 and 2 relate to title of plaintiff and relief of declaring his share on the basis of co-ownership of the suit property. 9. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence and documents filed by both the parties has given a finding that plaintiff has no title or possession over the suit land and disbelieved the memorandum of partition (Ex. P/1) which is having admission of co-ownership of the suit land by defendent No 1. Learned trial Court has held that execution of Ex. P/1 has not been proved by attesting witnesses. Thumb impression of defendant No. 1 has not been proved by plaintiff by expert evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that it was the duty of the defendant No. 1 to get the document (Ex. P/1) examined by expert and give report thereon that document has not been executed by him by putting his thump impression on it. Plaintiff has preferred his claim on the basis of document (Ex. P/1) because the gift deed (Ex. D/1) is in the name of defendent No. 1 alone and thereafter his name has been mutated in the revenue record also, therefore, the burden of proving the fact that the suit land was property of co-ownership was on plaintiff who has based his suit on co-ownership of the suit land. Except so-called agreement Ex. P/1, there is no document regarding sole ownership of plaintiff over the suit property, as the gift deed was executed in name of defendant No. 1 due to love and affection with him and not with his brothers, therefore, the burden of proving the document Ex. P/1 was on the plaintiff who is claiming joint ownership on the basis of Ex. P/1. 10. Therefore, both the Courts below are justified in holding that plaintiff has no share as co-owner over the suit land on the basis of gift deed Ex. D/1. It is an admitted document and burden to prove anything contrary to the fact written in it, was also on plaintiff. 1" e mutation in the municipal record does not give any right to title in the property, therefore, plaintiff neither proved the possession over the suit land nor he has proved the co- ownership over the suit land with other brothers. 1" e mutation in the municipal record does not give any right to title in the property, therefore, plaintiff neither proved the possession over the suit land nor he has proved the co- ownership over the suit land with other brothers. Both the Courts' below have not committed any error in not giving any relief of declaration of co-ownership to the plaintiff. AS REGARDS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO. 3:- 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compromise application has been filed before the learned lower appellate Court bearing thumb impression of defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. The application for compromise has been filed on 29/1/1999 by the plaintiff. The case was thereafter adjourned on 12/2/1999 for consideration on the ground that all the parties to the suit have not signed the compromise application. Thereafter another application under Order 10 Rule 2 read with Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed on 29/6/2004. Thereafter, order-sheet date 11/8/2004 shows that defendant No. 1 Ramkishan has given an affidavit that there is no compromise with him and he has not received any amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted before the learned lower appellate Court that counsel for defendant No. 1 be summoned for verification of the compromise. This prayer was refused by learned lower appellate Court on the ground that on the basis 'of statement of counsel, compromise cannot be admitted, therefore, compromise application has been rejected. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that learned lower appellate Court has committed grave legal error in dismissing the application by refusing to summon the counsel for defendant No. 1 as witness to the compromise application. He has cited the judgment of Hon. Karnataka High Court in the matter of Krishna Gajanana Vedeshwar and others etc. vs. Narayan Gajanan Vedeshwar and others etc., AIR 2005 Karnataka 229 in which it has been held that compromise signed by counsel is a valid compromise in absence of any fraud, misrepresentation etc. against counsel. 14. In the present case, defendant No. 1 himself has filed an affidavit to the effect that he has not compromised the suit, therefore, compromise application which has been denied by defendant himself cannot be considered on acted upon by taking evidence of counsel of defendant No. 1. against counsel. 14. In the present case, defendant No. 1 himself has filed an affidavit to the effect that he has not compromised the suit, therefore, compromise application which has been denied by defendant himself cannot be considered on acted upon by taking evidence of counsel of defendant No. 1. Therefore, learned lower appellate Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed under Order 10 Rule 2 read with Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn attention of this Court towards the fact that learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the application for amendment of plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 8/2/1999 by which on the basis of compromise application it was proposed to plead that after compromise, defendant No. 1 has no right, title or interest in the suit land. But learned lower appellate Court has rejected the application on the ground that compromise has been refused by defendant No. 1. Since the compromise has not been proved, therefore, amendment application on the basis of compromise application cannot be allowed. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that learned lower appellate Court has also dismissed the application of plaintiff filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which was filed to prove the adverse possession of plaintiff by adducing additional evidence. 17. Learned lower appellate Court dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that before filing of suit, the required period of adverse possession was not completed and if during pendency of litigation the period of adverse possession is said to be completed, it cannot be held that plaintiff has acquired any title on the basis of adverse possession. 18. Resultantly, the appeal has no force and substantial questions of law are answered in favour of defendant No. 1. Appeal is therefore dismissed. Appellant to bear his own costs alongwith the cost of defendant No. 1. Counsel fee as per schedule, if certified.