(1) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit in question was filed on behalf of the appellant alleging that he purchased the disputed land from Gayadin and Sumania in the year 1946 for a consideration of Rs 60 and came in possession of the said land. It appears that a registered sale deed dated 26-4-1957 was executed in respect of the same land by the aforesaid Gayadin or the holder of power of attorney on his behalf in favour of the respondent for a consideration of Rs 400. According to the respondent, he came in possession of the land after transfer was made in his favour. (2) THE trial court decreed the suit taking the view that as the transfer had been made for an amount less than Rs 100, in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the appellant derived a valid title. That finding was affirmed by the court of appeal. However, on second appeal being filed on behalf of the respondent the High Court dismissed the suit. This appeal is against the aforesaid order of the High Court. (3) THE High Court has pointed out that the appellant has stated in para 4 of the plaint as follows: "THAT the plaintiff after the said purchase and possession, applied for mutation, which was certified on 17-1-1963 by the then Tahsildar Sahib of Manendragarh". (4) THEREAFTER, it has been observed by the High Court that there is no assertion made on behalf of the appellant in the plaint that in 1946 itself on payment of Rs 60 to Gayadin by the appellant possession of the disputed land was delivered to the appellant or that he was put in possession of the same. Section 54 of the Act provides as under: "54. Sale defined. Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. In the case of tangible immoveable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property." (5) ON a plain reading in the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, transfer may be made either by a registered document or by delivery of possession. But it has been further said in the said section that the delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs in possession of the property. The appellant in the plaint has not stated anywhere as to when he came in possession of the land which is the subject-matter of dispute. In view of Section 54 of the Act till the purchaser is put in possession in respect of any immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees the sale does not take place. There is no dispute that in the year 1957 by the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 26-4-1957 the same land was transferred in favour of the respondent. According to us, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had acquired valid title on the basis of the aforesaid registered sale deed. (6) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant then urged that in any case the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of the courts below because there was no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. It appears that the appeal was filed in the year 1976 before amendment of Section 100 by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force with effect from 1-2-1977. Whether construing the scope of Section 54 of the Act shall amount to a substantial question of law or not may be a subject-matter of controversy, but certainly it shall amount to a question of law that the High Court was entitled to decide in the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether construing the scope of Section 54 of the Act shall amount to a substantial question of law or not may be a subject-matter of controversy, but certainly it shall amount to a question of law that the High Court was entitled to decide in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court on the pleadings of the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant had not stated in the plaint that he came in possession of the land transferred to him in the year 1946 itself by delivery of possession, which was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** ---