(Rajiv Sharma, J.) -This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 82-S/13 of 1992 decided on 22nd March, 1995.

2.The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and possession mentioning therein that he was owner in possession of the disputed land comprised in Khasra No. 28, 303/293 measuring 10 Bighas situated in Mauja Radon Pandh, Pargana Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil Kasauli as per the jamabandi for the year 1980-81. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for convenience sake) induced him to execute a writing of exchange of the suit land with some land owned by the defendant in village Patorwa and Dalwi in Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the deed of exchange is vitiated by fraud as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether mutation No. 149 sanctioning on the basis of exchange deed is wrong, illegal, void ? OPP

3. Whether the exchange is against provisions of law and not binding ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land ? OPP

5. Whether the defendant after exchange improved the suit land, if so, to what effect ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff in lieu of exchange was compensated by transfer of entire land of villages Pater and Dehlvi as alleged ? OPD

7. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

8. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

9. Whether the suit for non and misjoinder is bad ? OPD

10. Whether the suit is properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD

11. Whether the defendant is tenant of the suit land ? OPD

12. Relief.

3.The findings recorded by the learned Sub Judge on the aforesaid issues are as under :-

Issue No. 1. No.

Issue No. 2. Yes.

Issue No. 3. Yes.

Issue No. 4. Yes.

Issue No. 5. No.

Issue No. 6. No.

Issue No. 7. Not pressed.

Issue No. 8. Not pressed.

Issue No. 9. Not pressed.

Issue No. 10. Not pressed.

Issue No. 11. No.

Issue No. 12

ReliefSuit decreed as per the operative portion of the judgment.

4.The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 16.10.1992. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1992. The learned District Judge had framed the following points for determination :

1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree warrants interference ?

2. Final order.

5.The learned Addl. District Judge had recorded the following findings on the aforesaid points :

1. Yes.

2. Per operative part of the judgment, the appeal is accepted and the suit dismissed.

6.The learned District Judge accepted the appeal on 22.3.1995. This regular second appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 22.3.1995. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the deed of exchange Ex.DA which evidence the transfer of the interest in the immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- was compulsorily registerable and inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration.

2. Whether the suit for possession on the basis of title where declaration is merely incidental the suit could be held to be barred by limitation for having not challenged the mutation in the revenue courts ?

3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court has misconstrued the rules of pleadings and misapplied the provision of order 6 rule 4 for reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court ?

7.Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate while arguing the appeal had confined his submission only to substantial question No. 1. He contended that the document Ex.DA is the exchange deed and was compulsorily required to be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 since according to him the value of the immovable