Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered by this Court in the plaintiffs' second appeal is as under:-

"Whether title can be acquired on exchange of land? If so, on whom burden of proof lie?"

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the Trial Court].

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

2.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming decree of permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit, also claimed relief of recovery of possession of land bearing khasra No. 59/1, area 1.04 acres situated at Village Nawagaon, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur stating inter alia that plaintiff No. 4 sold khasra No. 59/2, area 0.82 acres of land to the defendants by registered sale deed dated 23-4-1991 (Exh. P-4), and also sold khasra No. 59/1, area 1.50 acres by registered sale deed dated 29-4-1991 (Exh. P-5) to the defendants, and thereafter, they are still having 1.04 acres of the land, from which they have been forcibly dispossessed by the defendants without authority of law, therefore, they are entitled for decree as stated above.

2.2. The defendants filed their written statement and admitted the fact that they have purchased 2.32 acres of the land from the plaintiffs by two registered sale deeds dated 23-4-1991 and 29-4-1991. They also pleaded that the lands, which they have purchased vide Exhs. P-4 and P-5 plaintiffs were directed to be returned by Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of power under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, in lieu of that land, plaintiffs have given schedule suit land 1.04 acres to them in exchange, and revenue records have also been corrected, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for decree as claimed.

2.3. Upon pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as three issues and answered them accordingly as under:-

dzekad okniz’u fu”d”kZ

1- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe [kljk uaEcj 59@1 jdck 1-04,] tks xzke uokxkao i-g-ua- 7 jk-fu-ea- dksVk rg- dksVk ftyk fcykliqj esa fLFkr gS] oknh ds LokfeRo ,oe~ vkf/kiR; dh Hkwfe gS \ ugha

2- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknh ds ‘kakfriw.kZ LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; esa izfr-x.k )kjk O;o/kku mRiUu fd;k tk jgk gS \ ugha

3- lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ iSjk 9 ds vuqlkj fu.kZ; ?kksf”kr

2.4. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 11-4-2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that they have failed to establish their title and possession over the suit land.

2.5. On appeal preferred by this appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC"), the First Appellate Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 21-10-2005, affirmed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs.

3. Impugning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the judgment and decree dated 21-10-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2005, instant second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the plaintiffs, which has been admitted for final hearing on the substantial question of law as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that both the Courts below have committed manifest error of jurisdiction in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit land. He would further submit that the defendants have clearly admitted in their written statement that they have only purchased 2.32 acres of the land and claimed suit land on the basis of exchange, was required to establish the fact of exchange, which they have miserably failed, therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed and decree be granted in favour of plaintiffs.

5. As against this, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit tha