but he had purchased shares from Raghbir Singh and Harmel Singh. There is no reference of any passage as claimed by the plaintiff-appellant. It is noticed by the first appellate court that Harmel Singh, one of the vendors had appeared in the witness box as DW-3 and had deposed that the passage leading to the house of Surjit Singh, defendant-respondent is 14 feet 3 inches and the passage for the house of plaintiff-appellant as also of Harpal Singh has a width of 9 feet six inches. Still further, Harpal Singh, who admittedly has his property adjoining to that of plaintiff-appellant also appeared as DW-1 and supported the version of the defendant-respondent. The first appellate court has drawn a logical inference and conclusion that as such Harpal Singh would be directly effected by the outcome of the suit. In the eventuality of the passage being held as 23 feet 9 inches as claimed by the plaintiff-appellant, Harpal Singh himself would be benefitted but inspite of that he had deposed against his own interest by supporting the claim of defendant-respondent. Upon appreciation of evidence the courts below have concluded that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove the passage as claimed by him. Consequently, the relief of injunction has been declined.
