The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of adverse possession and its application to the case, along with the validity of an oral exchange of land and the irrevocability of a license under the Easements Act.

1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Kawardha in Civil Appeal No.34-A/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1996 passed by the Civil Judge Class-2 in Civil Suit No. 139-A/1994.

2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the Courts below have fallen into error by non-suiting the plaintiffs on the ground that defendants No. 1 to 3 have perfected their title on the land bearing Khasra No. 181 by adverse possession when admittedly it is a case of permissive possession by way of exchange of land between the parties?

(2) Whether exchange of land having value more than Rs.l00/- can be transacted without any document being registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908?"

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

(i) Admittedly, the appellants are legal representatives of late Jagat and respondents No.1 to 3 are legal representatives of late Dinesh. The land situated in village Bidaura bearing Kh.No.181, area 8.34 acres was owned by Jagat and land situated in same village bearing Kh.No.l29, area 3.23 acres was owned by Dinesh. 30 - 35 years before filing the suit, Jagat transferred possession of 20 decimals of his land (suit land) to Dinesh and in exchange obtained possession of 40 decimals of his land. Dinesh constructed two room house on the land obtained from late Jagat and lived in it till his life. After his death, defendants constructed one more room in the year 1992 and are living in it. Since the date of exchange, earlier Jagat and after his death appellants are in cultivating possession of the land obtained in exchange from late Dinesh.

(ii) As per plaintiffs' case, late Jagat temporarily permitted late Dinesh to construct house over the suit land and live in it for 2 to 4 years and in lieu of it Dinesh had also transferred possession of 40 decimals of his land to Jagat. But the ownership of the suit land was never transferred nor registered exchange deed was executed and the suit land still stands recorded in the name of the appellants. Dispute arose when respondents started constructing one more room over the suit land.

(iii) The respondents denied the plaint averments and pleaded, the transaction of exchange of land between Jagat and Dinesh though not registered but was permanent and was with an intention to transfer ownership. Pursuant to above transaction, both the parties came in possession of each other's land. Late Dinesh constructed Pucca house over the suit land, also incurred expenses and since then earlier Dinesh and after his death, respondents are in peaceful and uninterrupted possession for a period of more than 35 years. The respondents had perfected their title by adverse possession.

(iv) Parties led evidence. The trial Court framed issues.

(v) The trial Court finding inter alia, plaintiffs failed to prove, the transfer of possession between the parties was temporary; respondents after obtaining possession of the suit land in exchange are in its continuous and peaceful possession for a period of 35 years; respondents have perfected their title by adverse possession; plaintiffs are also estopped from claiming title over the land transferred to respondents, granted alternative relief to the appellants as claimed by them.

(vi) The plaintiffs preferred first appeal. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, affirmed the above findings and dismissed the appeal.

4. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently argued: the oral transaction of exchange of land for want of registration is inadmissible and does not confer any title upon the respondents. The respondents' possession over the suit land was permissive and both the Courts below have erred in holding, respondents have perfected their title by way of adverse possession, inasmuch as, permissive possessi