Judgment M. L. Singhal, J. 1. Darshan Singh defendant moved an application for the grant of permission to him to lead secondary evidence of agreement dated 14/2/1989 which got lost/ misplaced by the officials of the Tehsil. Office kanungo was summoned for the production of the original agreement dated 14/2/1989 which was attached with Mutation No.3015 relating to exchange of land which was brought about by that agreement dated 14/2/1989. Office Kanungo stated that the original agreement was not lying on the mutation record. It got misplaced and it was not traceable. Its attested copy was obtained by Darshan Singh on 20/6/1995 from the mutation record. He stated that this agreement was very essential to prove his case and as such he be allowed to produce the attested copy of that agreement and prove it by secondary evidence. 2. Plaintiff Harbhajan Singh and defendant dilbagh Singh opposed this prayer saying that this application is not maintainable and further this agreement is in fact a deed of exchange which is not admissible into evidence for want of stamp and registration. Deed of exchange is required by law to be compulsorily registered and without being registered, it is a waste paper. Vide order dated November 25, 1999, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), anandpur Sahib refused this prayer of darshan Singh saying that this document is exchange deed touching land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas of the value of more than rs.100/-. Exchange deed through which property worth more than Rs.100/- was exchanged required compulsory registration. In the absence of registration, it is a waste paper. 3. Darshan Singh and others have come up in revision to this court against this order. 4. Heard Mr. P. C. Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajinder Singh Moun, advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R. N. Moudgil, Advocate for Harbhajan singh respondent. 5. Document dated 14.2.1989 is not an agreement. It is a deed of exchange where through land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas belonging to Sada Ram son of Shibu son of atra was exchanged with land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas belonging to Darshan Singh son of Sada Ram son of Shibu. Exchange deed touching immovable property of the value of more than Rs.100/- requires to be compulsorily registered. Allowing secondary evidence to produce this deed of exchange and prove it by way of secondary evidence might be an exercise in futility. Exchange deed touching immovable property of the value of more than Rs.100/- requires to be compulsorily registered. Allowing secondary evidence to produce this deed of exchange and prove it by way of secondary evidence might be an exercise in futility. Deed of exchange through which immovable property worth more than rs.100/- is exchanged with immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- requires to be stamped under the Indian Stamp Act and registered under the Indian Registration Act. Sale of immovable property is required to be registered if the value of the immovable property sold is Rs.100/- or upwards. On the same analogy, deed of exchange will also require registration because in exchange an immovable property is exchanged with immovable property. It is distinguishable from sale in the sense that in sale price is fixed for the immovable property sold wheareas in exchange instead of price immovable property is mentioned. In sale, on the one hand, there is immovable property and on the other there is price. In exchange, on the one hand there is immovable property and on the other hand also there is immovable property. If the deed of exchange touches immovable property worth Rs.100/- or more, it has to be compulsorily registered. It was held, in Gurdial Singh v. Ajmer Singh, 1987 PLR 124, that exchange deed, if written and subject matter of exchange is of the value of more than Rs.100/-. It is compulsorily registerable and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence. Unregistered document is not receivable in evidence being inadmissible. Allowing Darshan Singh to produce the attested copy of the exchange deed and prove it by secondary evidence will be only an exercise in futility. In my opinion, the learned Trial Court justifiably declined the prayer of Darshan Singh. This revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.