Judgment Rajendra Menon, J. ( 1. ) This is defendants second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree granted by the first appellate court, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit filed by respondent no.1 Chhotelal Sharma. The appeal was admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law: " Whether the lower appellate court failed to see that sale deed for sale of the property worth less than Rs.100/- was not required to be registered and sale can be proved by delivery of possession, if the consideration is paid ?" ( 2. ) Plaintiff respondent no. 1 Chhotelal had filed civil suit for declaration of title and injunction in the year 1975 in the court of Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa, which was re-numbered in the year 1980 as Civil Suit No.58-A/80. Holding plaintiff Chhotelal Sharma to have failed to prove his claim, suit was dismissed on 13-01-1993. Aggrieved thereof first appeal was filed before the First Additional District Judge, Rewa, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.l9- A/1983 and the suit having been decreed by the first appellate court, this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the appellants herein, who are legal heirs of original defendant no.5 Ramdas Kahar. *S.A. No.353/1995 (Jabalpur) ( 3. ) Facts in nutshell, relevant for consideration of this appeal, are that the disputed property pertaining to the present suit consists of a Plot, house measuring 100 ft. x 50 ft. known as Plot No. 113/05 situated in Khutehi, it was jointly held by defendant nos. 1 to 4 i.e. Ramchandra, Mangal, Bhagwandeen and Ramavtar. By sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 30-01-1967, it is the case of the plaintiff that Ramchandra and Mangal sold the property to him on payment of a consideration of Rs.1250, the sale deed is registered and filed as Ex.-1. ( 4. ) As there was certain error in the sale deed, a correction deed was recorded vide Ex.P-2 on 07-12-1970, which is also a registered document. It is the case of Chhotelal Sharma that after acquiring title to the property i.e. 5000 sq.ft. = 0.12 decimal Chhotelal the plaintiff filed an application for mutation before the competent authority. ( 4. ) As there was certain error in the sale deed, a correction deed was recorded vide Ex.P-2 on 07-12-1970, which is also a registered document. It is the case of Chhotelal Sharma that after acquiring title to the property i.e. 5000 sq.ft. = 0.12 decimal Chhotelal the plaintiff filed an application for mutation before the competent authority. On this being, done, defendant no.5 Ramdas Kahar raised an objection and claimed his right to the entire property on the ground that vide un-registered sale deed dated 25-08-1956 Ex.D-1, he had purchased 0.42 decimal of land on payment of consideration of Rs.84/-from defendants Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and one Ramfal. On the objection raised, it is stated that vide order dated 14-06-1973 filed by both the parties as Ex.P-3 and Ex.D-4 respectively, the competent authority rejected the application for mutation in the revenue record filed by Chhote Lal Sharma finding boundary and marking of the property purchased by him to be incorrect. ( 5. ) After rejection of the application for entry in the revenue record, Chhotelal Sharma the filed the suit in question for declaration of title and possession on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 30-01-1967. ( 6. ) The defendant nos.1 to 4 namely Ramchandra, Mangal, Bhagwandeen and Ramavtar, the original owners of the property accepted each and every averments made in the plaint but it was only defendant no.5 Ramdas, who refuted the contention and claimed that originally he was owner of 0.24 decimal of land in Khasra N6.1V3/05 and the remaining 0.42 decimal was purchased by him from Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal vide unregistered sale deed Ex. D-1 dated 25-08-1956 on payment of consideration of Rs.84/-. ( 7. ) Before the trial court various issues were framed, documents were filed and witnesses examined. As far as plaintiff Chhotelal Sharma is concerned, he filed 3 documents namely Ex.P-1, registered sale deed dated 30-01-1967; Ex.P-2 corrected deed dated 07-12-1970; and Ex. P-3 the order dated 14-06-1973 passed by the competent authority rejecting the prayer of Chhotelal Sharma, plaintiff for mutation of his name in the revenue record. As far as plaintiff Chhotelal Sharma is concerned, he filed 3 documents namely Ex.P-1, registered sale deed dated 30-01-1967; Ex.P-2 corrected deed dated 07-12-1970; and Ex. P-3 the order dated 14-06-1973 passed by the competent authority rejecting the prayer of Chhotelal Sharma, plaintiff for mutation of his name in the revenue record. As far as defendant no.5 is concerned, he filed 4 documents i.e. Ex.D-1 the unregistered sale deed dated 25-08-1956; Ex.D-2 was the khasra entry for the year 1961-1962; Ex.D-3 was Khasra entry for the year 1968-69; Ex.D-5, the khasra entry for the year 1969- 1970 and Ex.D-4 the same order dated 14-06-1973 filed by the plaintiff as Ex. P-3. The parties examined 7 witnesses in all. 3 witnesses were examined by the plaintiff they were PW-1 Chhotelal Sharma, plaintiff himself, PW-2 Ramchandra i.e. defendant no. 1 and PW-3 Ramlal. Defendant Ramdas has examined ad DW-1 and other 3 witnesses namely Ram Bhan Singh DW-2, Teerath Prasad DW-3 and Raghunath Prasad as DW-4. On the basis of evidence and material that have come on record, the learned trial court found that the plaintiff has filed to prove his case and, therefore, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated .13-01-1993-. However, on first appeal being filed the suit having been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14-02-1995. Legal heirs of defendant no.5 Ramdas Kahar has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. ( 8. ) As indicated hereinabove only one substantial question of law is framed for consideration. Shri M.L.Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Manoj Kushwaha for the appellants emphasized that as Ramdas Kahar had purchased the property in question i.e. 0.42 decimal area by unregistered document Ex.D-1 dated 25-08-1956 and as possession of Ramdas on the entire property i.e. 0.66 decimal is established from khasra entries Ex. D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5, learned first appellate court committed error in holding that on the basis of unregistered documents purchase of property by the defendant no. 5 is not established, it was emphasized by them that in the light of the law laid down by this court in case of Smt. Chanda Bai and another Vs. D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5, learned first appellate court committed error in holding that on the basis of unregistered documents purchase of property by the defendant no. 5 is not established, it was emphasized by them that in the light of the law laid down by this court in case of Smt. Chanda Bai and another Vs. Anwar khan and others, AIR 1997 MP 238 , when the value of the property purchased is less than Rs.100/- registration of the sale deed is not required and as possession is proved from the khasra entries in decreeing the suit the court below is said have committed grave error. Taking me through the finding recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court and the requirement of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the first appellate court committed error in dismissing the suit merely on the ground that that sale deed Ex.D-1 is not registered, accordingly contending that the suit has been decreed on improper consideration contrary to the principles of law, learned counsel prays for interference into the matter. ( 9. ) Shri J.L. Mishra, learned counsel for plaintiff Chhotelal Sharma/ defendant no. 1 herein refuted the aforesaid contentions and argued that total area of land bearing Khasra No. 113/5 is 0.66 decimal. The document Ex. P-3 and D-4 are the order passed by the competent authority on 14.06.1973 dismissing the application of plaintiff Chhotelal Sharma indicates that out of the total area 0.66 decimal, Bhagwandeen and Mangal hold l/3rd share each . Ravavtar and Ramchandra hold in all 1/6 share and therefore, out of total area i.e. 0.66 decimal defendant nos. 1 to 4 together hold 0.42 decimal. Ramdas defendant no.5 is shown to be holding only 0.24 decimal in the order Ex.P-3/D-4. Out of the total area 0.42 decimal held by defendant nos.1 to 4, if defendant nos.1 and 2 i.e. Ramchandra and Mangal have sold 5000 sq ft. = 0.12 decimal to Chhotelal Sharma, then it is impossible for defendant nos.3 and 4 to sell the entire area of 0.42 decimal by a unregistered sale deed when as per of the first appellate court the total area held by the defendant nos.1 and 2 as per their shares come to 0.18 decimal. Contending that defendant no. = 0.12 decimal to Chhotelal Sharma, then it is impossible for defendant nos.3 and 4 to sell the entire area of 0.42 decimal by a unregistered sale deed when as per of the first appellate court the total area held by the defendant nos.1 and 2 as per their shares come to 0.18 decimal. Contending that defendant no. 5 Ramdas has failed to establish the claim based on an unregistered sale deed Ex.D-1 dated 25-08-1956, he is only entitled to the property held by him 0.24 decimal as is apparent from the order Ex.P-3/ Ex.D-4 Shri J.L.Mishra, prays for dismissal of this appeal on the ground that the delivery of possession to the extent of 0.66 decimal is not proved by defendant no.5 Ramdas. ( 10. ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before adverting to consider the rival contentions on merit, it would be appropriate to take note of the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,. 1882. Section 54 defines sale and prescribes how a sale is made. Section 54 reads 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 immovable 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 immovable 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 immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property." Even though transfer of immovable property of the value below Rs.100/- by the unregistered sale deed is recognized by section 54, the same warrants delivery of possession by the seller to the buyer. The provisions of section 54 has been subject matter of interpretation before the Privy council in the case of Mathura Prasad and others Vs. The provisions of section 54 has been subject matter of interpretation before the Privy council in the case of Mathura Prasad and others Vs. Narayan Choudhary and others, AIR 1921 Privy Council 8, and in the aforesaid judgment it has been held by the Privy Council that according to Section 54 of the "transfer of Property Act, for sale of land value of which is less than Rs.100/- there has to be acted delivery of the property by the seller to the buyer. This principle is further affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Chandra and others Vs. Hari Kirtan and another, AIR 2004 Allahabad 345, wherein it is laid down that under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, two things are required to constitute a sale, namely, a contract to transfer the ownership of the land sold in exchange for a price and the transfer of ownership followed by delivery of the property. The existence of an unregistered document is not a bar under section 91 of the Evidence Act, provided sale is followed by actual delivery. It is therefore, clear that the requirement of law is that in case of sale by unregistered document actual delivery of property is a requirement of law and in case actual delivery of property is not established the sale is also not proved. ( 11. ) If facts of the case in hands are analyzed in the backdrop of the aforesaid principles, it would be seen that Ramdas was already in possession of 0.24 decimal of land in Khasra No. 113/5 it was his case that vide unregistered sale deed Ex.D-1 dated 25-08-1956, he had purchased the remaining 0.42 decimal of land from defendants Bhagwandeen Ramavtar and Ramfal on payment of a consideration of Rs.84/-. The unregistered document Ex.D-1 indicates that Ramdas had purchased the property from Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal. There is no dispute with regard to fact that the entire 0.42 decimal of lands belong to 4 defendants namely Ramchandra. Mangal, Bhagwandeen and Ramavtar and it is further admitted that Ramchandra and Mangal have not effected any sale. The unregistered document Ex.D-1 indicates that Ramdas had purchased the property from Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal. There is no dispute with regard to fact that the entire 0.42 decimal of lands belong to 4 defendants namely Ramchandra. Mangal, Bhagwandeen and Ramavtar and it is further admitted that Ramchandra and Mangal have not effected any sale. The order dated 14-06-1973 Ex.P-3/ Ex.D-4 passed by the competent authority, while rejecting the application of plaintiff Chhotelal Sharma indicates that out of this area 0.42 decimal of lands, Ramchandra and Mangal had 0.18 decimal of land to their credit i.e. they had 1/3 share each in the property and out of this 0.18 decimal they have sold 0.12 decimal by registered sale deed to Chhotelal on 30-01-1967. The other defendants Bhagwandeen had l/6th share , Ramdas had l/6th share and Ramavtar had l/9th share . Accordingly, it would be clear that the property was held jointly by 5 persons namely Ramchabndra, Mangal, Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal and it is only 3 persons Bhagwandeen , Ramavtar and Ramdas who have executed the unregistered document Ex. D-1. That being so the first appellate court after considering the requirement of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act had held that Bhagwandeen , Ramavtar and Ramfal could no sell the property to the extent of share held by Ramchandra and Mangal and therefore it was incumbent for defendant no.5 Ramdas to show actual handing over of possession by the 5 owners. This is not proved by leading cogent evidence and therefore, disbelieving execution of the unregistered document Ex.D-1 and finding plaintiff to have purchased 5000 sq.ft. of land by registered sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 30-01-1967, the suit is decreed. ( 12. ) If the law requires establishment of sale by virtue of an unregistered sale deed to be followed by delivering of possession, it was incumbent upon the appellants to show before that all the 5 owners i.e. Ramchandra, Mangal, Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal had delivered the actual possession after unregistered document Ex.D-1 was registered , plaintiff has tried to prove this actual possession by placing reliance on the khasra entries Ex. D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5. Apart from the khasra entries, no other evidence is adduced by the plaintiff to show actual possession being handed over after unregistered sale deed was executed on 25-08-1956. D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5. Apart from the khasra entries, no other evidence is adduced by the plaintiff to show actual possession being handed over after unregistered sale deed was executed on 25-08-1956. By placing reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Chanda Bai (supra) learned counsel for the appellant wanted this court to record a conclusion that as the possession of defendant no.5 Ramdas on the entire property i.e. 0.66 decimal is established from the khasra and therefore the entries requirement of section 54 is fulfilled. However, the question is as to whether this contention can be accepted . ( 13. ) Khasra entries Ex. D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 are the entries for the year 1961-1962, 1968-69 and 1969-70. "After these documents were prepared prior to 1970 the matter went to the competent authority and on the application filed by the plaintiff Chhotelal, which ultimately resulted in passing of the order dated 14-06-1973 Ex.P-3/D-4. When the competent authority evaluated the case on 14-06-1973 the finding recorded is that Ramdas is only in possession of area measuring 0.24 decimal. The remaining area, i.e. 0.42 decimal is held by Ramchandra, Mangal, Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal in the ratio as indicated in the order. If that be so then the veracity of the khasra entries Ex. D-2, D-3 and D-5 becomes doubtful. As there are contradiction in the facts mentioned in khasra entries and the order dated 14-06-1973 passed by the revenue authorities. That apart Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 are khasra entries they are maintained in accordance to the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the question is as to whether presumption can be drawn with regard to correctness of the entries in the revenue record, and further question is as to how entry made in the revenue record are to be established/proved. A Bench of this court in the case of Sitaram V. Ramcharan and others, 1994 JLJ 657 has held that the entries made in the revenue record are only presumptive in naturt their correctness can be presumed under law, only if it is established from the record that the revenue records have been prepared according to procedure laid down in the M.P. Land Revenue Code for the said purpose. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that the inference with regard to correctness of revenue record can be raised under section 79 of the Evidence Act when the document is proved to have been prepared in the manner as prescribed by law. In the present case the revenue records and Khasra entries are required to be prepared in accordance to the prescribed procedure contained in the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Defendant no.5 Ramdas has not led any evidence to prove that the revenue record i.e. khasra entries Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 are prepared as per procedure prescribed under law. The documents are only marked as exhibits on the basis of the statement of defendant witness no. 1 i.e. Ramdas himself and no revenue officer or authority is examined to show that the records Ex.D-2, Ex. D-3 and Ex.D-5 are prepared in accordance to the prescribed procedure. ( 14. ) In that view of the matter, in the light of the law laid down by this court in the case of Sitaram (supra) it cannot be assumed that the revenue entry made with regard to possession i.e. Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 are enough to draw a presumption that possession of the defendant Ramdas is established. ( 15. ) In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Khilan Singh, 1997, Revenue Nirnay 94 and again in the case of Daulatram Vs. Gopi and others, 1997 Revenue Nirnay 151, this principle is reiterated and it is held that entries made in revenue records cannot give presumption even of illegal possession . It has been held in the case of Daulatram (supra) that certain entries made in the record for certain period cannot lead to a presumption of possession by the person concerned for a long period of time. In the present case as already indicated" hereinabove preparation of the revenue record Ex.,D-2, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-5 in accordance to the prescribed procedure is not proved and in comparison to these documents another document relied upon by both the parties Ex.P-3/D-4 gives a totally different picture. In that view of the matter it is a case where actual possession of the appellants is not proved and therefore, the appellate court, it can be held has not committed any error in holding that the defendant no. 5 claimed based by unregistered document Ex.,D-l is not established. In that view of the matter it is a case where actual possession of the appellants is not proved and therefore, the appellate court, it can be held has not committed any error in holding that the defendant no. 5 claimed based by unregistered document Ex.,D-l is not established. Even after it is assumed that the registration of the sale deed Ex.,D-l is not required, but taking over of actual possession after execution of the unregistered sale deed was required to be proved by the defendants Ramdas and Ramdas having failed to prove that he had taken actual possession from Ramchandra, Mangal, Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal after execution of the unregistered document on 25-08-1956, the appellate court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit. Once purchase of the property disputed i.e. 0.12 decimal 100 x 50 ft. - 5000sq.ft, by the plaintiff is established on the basis of registered sale deed Ex. P-1 dated 30-1-1967. ( 16. ) The evidence adduced by the defendant and the 4 witnesses examined by him have only testified with regard to a house available in the area belonging to Ramdas. None of the witnesses have stated that after the unregistered document Ex.D-1 was executed on 25-08-1956 the actual possession immediately thereof or after some time was granted by Ramchandra, Mangal, Bhagwandeen, Ramavtar and Ramfal. The appellant having failed to establish this fact which is a requirement of law i.e. section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, I am of the considered view that the learned court below has not committed any error in decreeing the suit. Accordingly the only question framed is answered by holding that the lower appellate court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit as delivery of possession is not proved and therefore, even if the sale deed of a property less then Rs.100/- can be effected by unregistered document. In the absence of actual delivery of possession being not proved, which is requirement of law as indicated hereinabove in decreeing the suit, the first appellate court has not committed any error. ( 17. ) Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal filed the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with costs on parties. Appeal dismissed.