The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transaction of exchange of immovable property and the decree recognizing the exchange required registration under the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Registration Act to be effective and enforceable.

1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-4-1999 of the Additional District Judge, Panipat affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Panipat dated 17-9-1997, whereby she (Civil Judge, Junior Division) had dismissed the plaintiffs (appellants herein) suit for declaration.

2. Facts:-

Plaintiffs Satyawan, Mohinder Singh and Ishwar Singh sons of Bir Singh filed suit for declaration against Raghbir Singh son of Desa son of Chandu to the effect that they are owners of land measuring 44 kanals 11 marlas detailed in para A of the head-note of the plaint, situated in the area of village Kurana, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat, shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 and mutation Nos. 5040, 5142 and defendant Raghbir Singh is the owner of land as detailed in para 8 of the head-note of the plaint, situated in the area of village Kurana, District Panipat shown in the jamabandi for the year 1987-88 and mutation No. 5247 and the judgment and decree dated 20-10-1992 passed in Civil Suit No. 959 of 1992 by Shri S. S. Lamba, Senior Sub-Judge, Panipat is illegal, null and void and was not binding on the plaintiffs and the same was based on fraud and misrepresentation and was liable to be set aside, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land detailed in para B of the head-note of the plaint and from alienating the land in suit detailed in the head-note of the plaint by way of sale, mortgage, gift and also for possession of the land detailed in para A of the head-note of the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint that plaintiffs were owners in possession of the land detailed in para A of the head-note of the plaint and the defendant was owner in possession of the land detailed in para B of the head-note of the plaint. Defendant approached the plaintiffs and requested them to exchange their land with his land detailed in the head-note of the plaint in para B representing that it was free from all encumbrances. Plaintiffs are simpletion and they accepted the request of the defendant. Defendant filed Civil Suit No. 959 of 1992 against them on 20-10-1992. Defendant brought Satyawan and Ishwar Singh plaintiffs and kept them seated in a corner of the Court-room by giving them some liquor. After some time, the defendant produced Satyawan and Ishwar Singh in the Court of Shri S. S. Lamba, Senior Sub-Judge, Panipat and the defendant had directed them (Satyawan and Ishwar Singh) to say "yes" before the Court. Satyawan and Ishwar Singh did as they had been directed by Raghbir Singh defendant to do. Contents of the plaint were not read over to Satyawan and Ishwar Singh. Things fizzled out when the plaintiffs (Satyawan, Mohinder Singh and Ishwar Singh) contacted Patwari Halqa to get the mutation recorded in their names in respect of the land detailed in para B of the head-note of the plaint situated within the area of village Kurana and the Patwari Halqa told them that the situation of the land detailed in para B of the head-note of the plaint was shown to be of village Israna, District Panipat, whereas it should have been shown to be of village Kurana. The Patwari Halqa also told them that there was also loan outstanding against the land shown in para B of the head-note of the plaint due to the Oriental Bank of Commerce Branch Hat, and the land was mortgaged with the said bank. After the plaintiffs came to know of this fact they approached the defendant and requested him to get the decree amended and also to get the land detailed in para B of the head-note of the plaint redeemed by making the repayment of the loan amount but the defendant refused to do so. Defendant further threatened that he had played fraud upon them knowingly and he had the right to alienate the entire land detailed in the head-note of the plaint and would also dispossess them from the land detailed in para B of the head-