The judgment established that an oral exchange of immovable property did not require compulsory registration under the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not applicable in Punjab and Haryana.

1. This is defendant s Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment dated 2-6-1983 passed by District Judge, Sirsa in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1983 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court have been set aside and suit of the respondent Ratti Ram has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the suit land. The substantial question of law which arises in the present Regular Second Appeal is as to whether an oral exchange of land, which is subsequently evidenced by a writing executed between the parties to the exchange, is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 , provided the land exchanged is of value of more than Rs. 100.00 .

2. Briefly stated the admitted facts may now be noticed : Ratti Ram hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit on 24-1-1979 being case No. 121 of 25-1-1979 seeking a decree for possession in respect of the land fully described in the title of the suit, which was as under :

"Suit for possession in respect of land measuring 30 kanal 9 marlas bearing sq. No. 95 Killa No. 3/2(1-8), 4(7-18), 5 min (7-18) 6/1 (5-9) 7/1 (1-12) 7/2(6-9) vide jamabandi for the year 1973-74 situated at village Shergarh Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa of which the plaintiff is the sole owner. But in the revenue papers it has been shown as exchange is wrong against law and facts and the plaintiff is entitled to get its possession on the basis of oral and documentary evidence of all kind."

3. On 18-11-1963, Paramjit Singh hereinafter referred to as the appellant had purchased 52 kanals 2 marlas of land from Sohan Lal, brother of the plaintiff. After selling the aforesaid land to the appellant Sohan Lal exchanged the same land with the plaintiff. This exchange of land between the brothers was challenged by the appellant by filing a civil suit, which was decreed in favour of the appellant on 30-7-1968. It was held that the exchange executed between Sohan Lal and Ratti Ram with regard to the suit land, was not binding on the appellant.

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, Ratti Ram filed Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1968, which was decided on 25-3-1969. In the appeal, it was held that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside. The appeal is accepted and the following decree is passed :

"4. A decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners of 20 kanals and 16 marlas of land Rect. No. 94 killa Nos. 1 (7 kanals 16 marlas) 10 (8 kanals) Rect. No. 95 killa 6/2 (2 kanals 11 marlas) 15/11 (2 kanals 9 marlas). As entered in the jamabandi 63-64 is granted. The plaintiff are also granted a decree for possession of 27 kanals 5 marlas of canal irrigated Land Rect. 94 Killa No. 11 (8 kanals) 12, (8 kanals), 13/2 (5 kanals 14 marlas) Rect. No. 95 killa No. 15/2 (5 kanals 11 marlas) and for possession of 4 kanals of land out of Rect No. 117 Killa No. 3/2 measuring 5 kanals. This 4 kanals of land out of killa No. 117/3/2 shall be given adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs or in such a way that it is most beneficial to them. In these circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Announced. Dated : 25-3-1969 Sd/- V.P. Aggarwal, Officio Addl. District Judge, Camp at Hisar 25-3-1969."

5. In view of above, the appellant became owner of 20 kanals and 16 marlas of land out of Rectangle No. 94 and 4 kanals of land out of Rectangle No. 117 and 5 kanals from Killa No. 3/2, the appellant was given possession of 31 kanal 5 marlas in total. Thereafter, appellant orally exchanged the aforesaid land with the plaintiff in lieu of the suit land proceedings of which have culminated in the present Regular Second Appeal. This exchange was oral. Subsequently, however, by writing Ex. D1 dated 16-10-1969, the factum of oral exchange was admitted by the parties. Thereafter, on 24-1-1969 the plaintiff filed a suit for possession alleging therein inter alia that the exchange not having been registered in accordance wit