Mata Din vs Sultan and others .

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff arises out of a suit for possession of the land, in dispute, on the basis of title.

The defendants contested the suit and, inter alia, asserted that the land, in dispute, had been given to them in exchange of their land situated in another village Fatehpuri and that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit.

Both the Courts below, on the basis of the unimpeachable revenue record and the evidence of the plaintiff himself, came to the conclusion that the plantiff had given the land, in dispute, to the defendants in exchange of the defendants'' land situated in village Fatehpuri and that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the present suit.

The learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that even if it is held that the defendants had got the land, in dispute, in exchange of their land in village Fatehpuri, then too they are not entitled to retain the possession thereof in view of the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff was the owner of the said land. According to the learned counsel, the title to the land cannot be extinguished unless there is a valid transfer in compliance with the provisions of section 17 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

In my opinion, there is no merit in this contention. The mutual exchange of property amounts to a sale of the exchanged properties. The only question that requires consideration is as to whether such a sale is to be effected by a registered document.

Section 118 of the Act, which defines the word `Exchange'', provides that `a transfer of property'' in completion of an eaxchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale.

Section 54 of the Act, which besides defining the word `sale'' provides as to how `sale'' is to be made, inter alia, provides that in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundered rupees and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument.

Section 118 of the Act, which has attracted the application of section 54 of the Act for the purpose of mode of transfer or, in other words, effecting sale of the given value of the immovable property, has not been made applicable to the State of Haryana.

In view of the above, there is no escape from the conclusion that transaction of oral exchange of immovable property of any value could be effected without a registered document. The moment the property had been so exchanged, the plaintiff lost his title to the exchanged property and was, therefore, not competent to maintain his suit for recovery of the possession thereof. The Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Fo the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed with costs.