JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.: (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby his suit for mandatory injunction had been dismissed. The plaintiff approached the civil Court on the ground that there was a path measuring 11 feet in width and 115 feet in length from road to Rajwaha, as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint and the said path was used as gair mumkin rasta by the plaintiff and the other inhabitants of the village. 2. Since there was a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.6 relating to the suit land, defendant No.6 filed a suit for permanent injunction titled as Mehma Ram Vs. Lachhman Dass and vide decree dated 09.09.1989, a compromise was effected and the suit filed by defendant No.6 was dismissed as withdrawn and the parties had agreed to leave path of 11 feet in width and 115 feet in length jointly from road to Rajwaha out of khasra No.9/451 and 11/2 from their joint shares of the holding. Subsequently, defendant No.6 sold the suit land to defendants No.1 to 5 in the year 1990. The said defendants have openly violated the compromise deed dated 09.09.1989 and closed the path which is the suit land, and therefore, there is no path for ingress and outgress for the plaintiff to go in his field except the rasta in dispute. 3. Written statement was filed by defendants No.1 to 5 wherein apart from taking various preliminary objections such as maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi, it was admitted that they had purchased the land measuring 12 kanals 12 marlas from defendant No.6 and they were in possession of the same. It was mentioned that there was no rasta for ingress and outgress of the plaintiff and other persons at the time of purchasing the land in dispute and defendants No.1 to 5 were in exclusive possession of the suit land which was not used for rasta. In pursuance of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. 4. In pursuance of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. 4. The trial Court, after going through the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the Aks sijra, which was the main document vide which the property could be identified, did not show the disputed khasra number in which the plaintiff was claiming rasta for reaching the property owned by him. It was held that since the plaintiff had failed to prove his case and the rasta has not been shown in the Aks sijra, therefore, the land could not be identified and the sale deed in favour of the defendants had not been proved on record. It was also noticed that the compromise deed between Mehma Singh and Lachhman Singh did not have the site plan and neither the revenue record showed that there was any gair mumkin rasta in the land in dispute. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case and had not laid any evidence to show that in the land in dispute, any rasta existed at any time in the record of revenue and the relief of mandatory injunction was declined vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2008. 5. An appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court which was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge on 26.11.2010 and aggrieved against the same, the present regular second appeal has been filed along with an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record Aks sijra issued on 16.07.2010. 6. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that defendant No.6 had compromised the matter and given him the right of rasta, and therefore, the subsequent purchasers were bound by the same compromise and has placed reliance upon Kartar Singh Vs. Mukha Singh (since deceased) through LR-Tarlochan Singh 2007 (1) PLR 115 to pressforth his submission. 7. This Court is unable to agree with the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant as admittedly the matter was compromised between the appellant and defendant No.6 in the earlier proceedings and the proceedings were withdrawn. Mukha Singh (since deceased) through LR-Tarlochan Singh 2007 (1) PLR 115 to pressforth his submission. 7. This Court is unable to agree with the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant as admittedly the matter was compromised between the appellant and defendant No.6 in the earlier proceedings and the proceedings were withdrawn. A subsequent vendee could not be bound by the said compromise which was effected between the appellant and defendant No.6. The judgment relied upon by the counsel pertains to where a tenant himself had agreed to effect the compromise, and thereafter, wanted to resile from the undertaking given by him. In the present case, defendants No.1 to 5 were neither party to the earlier proceedings nor gave any undertaking and had become owner’s only subsequently, and therefore, they were not bound by the compromise which was entered into by their vendor. As per the sale deed in their favour, they had become absolute owners and could not be restricted by any undertaking of their vendor with the appellant. The revenue record never depicted that khasra No.9/451 and khasra No.11/2 was used as any thoroughfare or any path and the compromise was never got implemented in the revenue record. It was also noticed that the suit filed by defendant No.6 which was decided on 09.09.1989 was dismissed as withdrawn and the compromise was not directed to be part of the decree-sheet, and therefore, the reasoning given by the trial Court has been up-held by the lower appellate Court. Counsel for the appellant has also held that the suit could not be dismissed against defendant No.6 and he was proceeded against ex parte. Once the defendant No.6 had sold his share, the suit itself against him would not be maintainable since the appellant was agitating the right of mandatory injunction to provide the rasta and defendants No.1 to 5 were not bound to abide by the terms of the compromise which had been effected earlier. Therefore, no fault can be found in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby they have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 8. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are up-held. ----------------