Exchange of property followed by delivery of possession and entry in mutation register constitutes valid exchange, and adverse possession for more than two decades can confer title to the possessor.

1. This second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Judge who on appeal affirmed that of the trial Court although on different reasons.

2. THE FACTS:

The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Gobind Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), brought a suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for a declaration to the effect that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the disputed land. He pleaded that he got the land in exchange for his Haveli from the owners Jeona and Sahib Dayal. On Sept. 21, 1951 during consolidation proceedings, a resolution was recorded at Sr. No. 144 of even date with regard to the factum of exchange. He continued to be in possession of the land got in exchange. Jeona and Sahib Dayal entered into possession of his Haveli. In the alternative, the ownership was also claimed on the ground of adverse possession. Jeona died 22 years prior to the filing of the suit whereas Sahib Dayal died five years later. Suit was filed against defendant/respondent No. 1. Gurdial Kaur daughter of Jeona and sister of Sahib Dayal was impleaded as a defendant in the suit and on her death her son was brought on record as defendant No. 2.

3. The defendants controverted the allegations made in the plaint and inter alia pleaded that the suit land was given to Gobind Singh for cultivation as a tenant on rent. The possession over the Haveli was admitted but it was pleaded that it was purchased for the residence of Sahib Dayal by his sister Smt. Gurdial Kaur (who was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit).

4. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner of the suit land by virtue of exchange/ adverse possession ? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his act and conduct ? OPD

4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit ? OPD

6. Relief.

5. Issues Nos. 2 to 5 were not pressed at the trial and were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 1 survives for consideration.

6. The learned Appellate Judge on appraisal of the evidence found that the plaintiff has been in possession of the land in dispute ever since 1959 onwards. He also found that in a civil litigation on the death of Jeona and Sahib Dayal between defendant No. 1 and Gurdial Kaur, defendant No. 1 specifically pleaded that the suit land was given in exchange to Govind Singh plaintiff but he maintained that the trial Court correctly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the exchange was not effected by a registered deed.

7. The entire approach of the learned Appellate Judge is erroneous and unsustainable. Ss.54, 107 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act were made applicable to the erstwhile State of Punjab on March 26, 1955. After these provisions were made applicable sale, lease of immovable property, gift could only be made by a registered document. Exchange could be made orally followed by delivery of possession and an entry to that effect in the mutation register. The Appellate Judge could not non-suit the plaintiff only on the ground that the exchange was not effected by a registered deed.

8. In the instant case, exchange was followed by delivery of possession. The plaintiff gave his Haveli in exchange for the land in dispute. Admittedly, the defendants are in possession of the Haveli and it was never disputed. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is evidenced by the entries in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1958 to 1963 Ex.P 8, Jamabandis for the year 1962-63 Ex.P 5, for the year 1968-69 Ex.P 6 and for the year 1973-74 Ex.P 7. He has been in possession of the suit property till the filing of the suit in October 1977. His possession was in assertion of his right hostile to