Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. dated 30.6.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No.49 of 2004. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant-defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and Sh. Hukam Ram, defendant No. 2. The plaintiff Poshu died during the pendency of this regular second appeal. His legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 3.1.2012. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any sort of interference or obstruction in two karams wide path shown in photo copy of aks musabi by points A and B passing through the portion of Kh. No. 553, connecting common village path running along the side of western boundary of Kh. No. 553 which touches eastern boundary of said Kh. number and connecting khasra Nos. 552 and 555, with the aforesaid village path, situated in Phati Mohal, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu, and for mandatory injunction that in case it is found that defendant had succeeded in causing any obstruction, the same be ordered to be removed. According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff, predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents No. 1(a) to 1(e) Sh. Poshu Ram, had filed suit bearing No. 87 of 1994. In the said litigation, Chobe Ram entered into amicable settlement and compromise was effected i.e. Ext. PW-1/B on 16.5.1995. It was further stated in the plaint that the land situated in Kh. No. 553 measuring 4-10-0 in Phati Mohal, Kothi Khokhan was earlier owned and possessed by the plaintiff Poshu and there were tenants who failed to pay the rent and Poshu had to file a suit for possession. The compromise was effected, as stated hereinabove, and the tenants surrendered the possession of 1-10-0 bigha in favour of plaintiff Poshu Ram and land 3-0-0 was gifted to the tenants by the plaintiff Poshu Ram. He became owner of land qua 1-10-0 bighas. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over Kh. No. 553. He purchased 10 biswas of land in Kh. He became owner of land qua 1-10-0 bighas. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over Kh. No. 553. He purchased 10 biswas of land in Kh. No. 553 from Trilok Nath and 1/9 share from Brestu and 4/90 share from Shukari. The execution of compromise dated 16.5.1995 was denied. Defendant No. 2 filed a separate written statement and supported the version of the plaintiffs. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Kullu, H.P. framed the issues on 16.5.2002. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Kullu, H.P, decreed the suit on 31.5.2004. Sh. Chobe Ram, defendant No. 1 feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kullu. The learned District Judge, Kullu, dismissed the same on 30.6.2005. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 20.9.2005: “1. Whether the Courts below in decreeing the suit have erred in considering and relying inadmissible evidence by way of compromise Ext. PW-1/B in Civil Suit No. 87/94, which was not recorded in that Civil Suit by the Court and that suit was dismissed as withdrawn, the compromise otherwise was not registered.?” 6. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the appellant, on the basis of the substantial question of law, has argued that the Courts below have wrongly relied upon the compromise Ext. PW-1/B in Civil Suit No. 87 of 1994. He also contended that the defendant was not party to Civil Suit No. 87 of 1994. On the other hand, Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, has supported the judgments and decrees rendered by both the Courts below. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 8. PW-1 Umavati, brought the record of Civil Suit No. 87/94. She proved the copy of plaint Ext. PW-1/A, copy of compromise dated 16.5.1995 vide Ext. PW-1/B, copy of application dated 16.5.1995 vide Ext. PW-1/C, order dated 17.5.1995 Ext. PW-1/D and order dated 30.5.1995 vide Ext. PW-1/E. 9. PW-2 Bhagat Ram, proved affidavit dated 17.5.1995 vide Ext. PW-2/A. 10. PW-3 Radha Devi deposed that the affidavit was attested by the Executive Magistrate on 17.5.1995 and was entered at Sr. No. 303. She admitted in her cross-examination that entries made at Sr. Nos. PW-1/C, order dated 17.5.1995 Ext. PW-1/D and order dated 30.5.1995 vide Ext. PW-1/E. 9. PW-2 Bhagat Ram, proved affidavit dated 17.5.1995 vide Ext. PW-2/A. 10. PW-3 Radha Devi deposed that the affidavit was attested by the Executive Magistrate on 17.5.1995 and was entered at Sr. No. 303. She admitted in her cross-examination that entries made at Sr. Nos. 301, 302 and 303 were not in her hand writing and she was not in a position to disclose as to who has made these entries. She was not in a position to state as to who had signed it. She could not identify the signatures of the Executive Magistrate. The name of the person who has sworn in the affidavit was not mentioned in the register, including his permanent address. 11. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-4. He stated that the property at Mohal was inherited by him from his mother. His mother inherited the same from her father Bali Ram. He was owner of Kh. No. 553 measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas. He proved copy of jamabandi Ext. PW-4/A. He had kept Brestu, Piaru and Shobha Ram as tenants over the suit land. They did not pay any rent to him. He filed civil suit and the matter was compromised. The land measuring 1½ bigha was left for him and he was also put in possession. He has given them 3 bighas of land by way of gift. He further stated that he entered into an agreement on 16.5.1995 with Brestu, Shukri, Mangri, Tarlok Nath and Chobe Ram. It was scribed by Bhoj Chander, Advocate. The contents were read over and explained. He put his signatures over the same and thereafter other persons also signed the same. He proved affidavit Ext. PW-1/B. The map of the path was prepared by Nidhi Singh. 12. PW-5 Vidya Sagar, deposed that he was Vice President of Panchayat Sayogi. An agreement was entered into on 16.5.1995 in his presence and other witnesses Kurbu Ram, Bhoj Chander Thakur, Advocate and Prem Chander Thakur, Advocate. It was scribed by Bhoj Chander Thakur, Advocate. The contents were read over in Hindi to the parties. They have signed the same. He along with Kurbu Ram singed as marginal witnesses. 13. PW-9 C.L. Sharma, Advocate, deposed that he was practicing since 1979 in District Courts Kullu. The affidavit was brought to him by Chobe Ram. He has identified him. The contents were read over in Hindi to the parties. They have signed the same. He along with Kurbu Ram singed as marginal witnesses. 13. PW-9 C.L. Sharma, Advocate, deposed that he was practicing since 1979 in District Courts Kullu. The affidavit was brought to him by Chobe Ram. He has identified him. He also put his signatures on Ext. PW-7/A. The copy of the same is Ext. PW-2/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the affidavit dated 17.5.1995 was not typed in his presence. On the affidavit, the name of the person who has drafted/typed it is not mentioned. He did not know where it was typed. It was not attested in his presence before the Executive Magistrate on 17.5.1995. The signatures were already put on the affidavit before he put his signatures. In his presence, neither Chobe Ram nor Executive Magistrate put their signatures. In his further cross-examination, he stated that the affidavit was not got prepared by Chobe Ram. Volunteered that Chobe Ram had brought it to him. 14. PW-11 B.C. Thakur, deposed that he was an Advocate of Poshu in Civil Suit No. 87/94. The agreement was scribed by him and P.C. Thakur. The contents of the same were read over to the parties. They, after admitting the contents to be correct had put their signatures. The marginal witnesses Kurbu and Vidya Sagar singed the same. The rest of the marginal witnesses also signed the same. He has moved the application on 16.5.1995 vide Ext. PW-1/C before the Senior Sub Judge, Kullu. He has signed the same. 15. PW-12 Karam Singh deposed that he has seen the disputed path. It was at a distance of 100-150 meters from his house. The width of the path is 9 ft. 4 inch and 105 ft. in length. 16. PW-13 Nidhi Singh has prepared Ext. PW-13/A. He admitted in his cross-examination that he has not signed Ext. PW-13/A nor any date was mentioned. 17. PW-14 Jai Singh has produced the record of Civil Suit No. 120/97. 18. PW-15 Ghaman Singh deposed that the defendant has purchased Rs. 5 stamp on 17.5.1995. 19. The defendant has appeared as DW-1. He testified that the plaintiff was not owner of Kh. No. 533. Kh. No. 555 was abadi. The house 1½ storyed existed on this khasra number. He was owner of the abadi and house. 18. PW-15 Ghaman Singh deposed that the defendant has purchased Rs. 5 stamp on 17.5.1995. 19. The defendant has appeared as DW-1. He testified that the plaintiff was not owner of Kh. No. 533. Kh. No. 555 was abadi. The house 1½ storyed existed on this khasra number. He was owner of the abadi and house. He has not sworn in any affidavit on 17.5.1995. 20. The plaintiff Poshu Ram has filed Civil Suit No. 87/1994 for declaration and injunction against Sh. Brestu, Shukri, Mangri, Trilok Nath and Chobe Ram. According to the plaintiff, compromise-deed was prepared vide Ext. PW-1/B. It was scribed by the learned Advocates and signed by marginal witnesses. It was also signed by Poshu Ram. An application for preponment and taking the case for hearing on 16.5.1995 was filed vide Ext. PW-1/C. The learned trial Court on 17.5.1995 has examined the parties and they were granted time to understand the implication of compromise. The matter was ordered to be put up on 30.5.1995. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded and as per his statement, the suit was withdrawn on 30.5.1995. The statement made by the plaintiff is not on record. 21. The defendant Chobe Ram was not party in the Civil Suit bearing No. 87 of 1994. The compromise dated 16.5.1995 was not even registered. There is no reference in order dated 30.5.1995 about the compromise Ext. PW-1/B. In case the compromise had been effected, the same ought to have been reflected in the order dated 30.5.1995, whereby the suit was withdrawn. 22. The case of the plaintiffs is also that the affidavit Ext. PW-2/A was also sworn in by defendant Chobe Ram. PW-9 C.L.Sharma, has not supported the case of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, has admitted that the affidavit dated 17.5.1995 was not typed in his presence. He did not know as to where it was typed. It was not attested in his presence before the Executive Magistrate on 17.5.1995. The signatures were already put on the affidavit before he put his signatures. In his presence, neither Chobe Ram nor Executive Magistrate put their signatures. Even if hypothetically presumed that the compromise Ext. PW-1/B was entered into, the same has never formed an integral part of Civil Suit No. 87 of 1994. The signatures were already put on the affidavit before he put his signatures. In his presence, neither Chobe Ram nor Executive Magistrate put their signatures. Even if hypothetically presumed that the compromise Ext. PW-1/B was entered into, the same has never formed an integral part of Civil Suit No. 87 of 1994. The Court has already noticed that there is no reference to the compromise even in orders dated 17.5.1995 and 30.5.1995 when the suit was withdrawn. 23. The learned first appellate Court has observed that there was no bar for the parties to enter into compromise even if they were not parties to the suit. However, in the instant case, it is reiterated that the compromise never formed part of the order dated 30.5.1995, whereby the civil suit No. 87 of 1994 was withdrawn. 24. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, has drawn the attention of the Court to jamabandi Ext. PW-4/A. The plaintiffs have not been shown as owners of the land comprised in Kh. No. 553 in Ext. PW-4/A. Sh. Tirlok Nath Magri and defendant No. 1 Chobe Ram, have been shown as owners-in-possession of the suit land. No tangible evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to rebut jamabandi Ext. PW-4/A. The first appellate Court has come to the wrong conclusion that no new right was created vide compromise Ext. PW-1/B. The right was created for the first time vide Ext. PW-1/B. Thus, the same was required to be registered and admittedly, Ext. PW-1/B was never registered. Both the Courts below have erred in relying upon Ext. PW-1/B, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 22. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Civil Suit No. 71 of 2000 is dismissed.