The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of registration for documents affecting immovable property and the legal consequences of unregistered documents, as highlighted in Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra, H.P., in CA No. 154-C/2003, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2003, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class-II, Dehra, H.P., in CS No. 30/99, whereby suit for declaration, injunction and consequential relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction having been filed by the plaintiff-appellant (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff"), came to be decreed.

2. For having bird's eye view, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession against the respondents-defendants (for short the defendants) in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ist Class-II, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., averring therein that he is in possession of the land compromised in khata No.52 min, Khatauni No. 97 and khasra Nos. 222, 148 and 169, Kita 3, area measuring 1-15-74 hects, and land comprised in khata No.5 Min, Khatauni No. 97, field No.219 area measuring 0-17- 18 hects, total land measuring 0-17-18 Hects., situate in Mohal Dareen, Mauza Gagruhi, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and is entitled to remain in its possession in future also. By way of aforesaid suit, plaintiff also sought declaration to the effect that order dated 22.12.1992 with regard to the exchange of the suit land along with other land is wrong and illegal and as such, not binding upon him. Plaintiff claimed before the court below that land comprised in khata No. 52 min, khatauni No. 97 Min, filed Nos. 169, 148, 200, 222 and 201 kita 5 area measuring 5-35-68 Hects., situate in Mohal Dareen Mauza Gagruhi, Tehsil Dehra District Kanra, H.P., is recorded in the ownership and possession of the defendants, but previously, this land was recorded in ownership and possession of the plaintiff as per jamabandi for the year 1986-87. Plaintiff pleaded before the court below that he is recorded in the possession qua the land comprised in khata No. 44 min, khatauni No. 92, field Nos. 211 and 254 to the extent of 1/4th share as per Jamabandi for the year, 1986-87, whereas defendants are recorded as owners in possession over the land comprised in kahasra No. 775, 776 790, measuring 1-66-52 Hects., as per Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 to the extent of 25533 shares out of 31976 shares and they are recorded owner in possession of the land comprised in field No. 219. Plaintiff took a stand before the court below that about 10 to 11 years back, he and defendants entered into an oral agreement for the exchange of their land i.e. 20 kanals. The plaintiff offered the land comprised in field Nos. 200 and 201 to the defendants in exchange of defendants' land comprised in field No. 219 and also land measuring 0-74-08 hects., out of the field No 790. Possession was transferred at spot on the basis of aforesaid oral agreement, where after defendants built their house in field No. 210, whereas plaintiff remained in possession of field No. 219. As per the plaintiff, mutation was not effected properly on the basis of exchange and defendants in collusion with Patwari got field Nos. 148, 169 and 222, entered in mutation of exchange wrongly at the back of the plaintiff. He further averred in the plaint that field Nos. 148 and 169 are near to the road having commercial value, whereas land of the defendants is nowhere near the road at all. He averred in the plaint that factum with regard to the aforesaid mutation came to his knowledge when one Sh. Anant Ram of Mohal Dareen, Mauza Gagruhi got his land demarcated and the Kanoongo, disclosed that field Nos. 148 and 169 had been recorded in the ownership of the defendants despite the fact that plaintiff was in possession of the field Nos. 148 &169 on the spot. Plaintiff also took a plea before the court below that