JUDGMENT : The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24-1-1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Umaria, District Shahdol in First Appeal No. 7-A/95 by which he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1995 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Umaria, in Civil Suit No. 41-A/1991, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the respondent/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit in respect of Khasra No. 2148, area 2.37 decimal of village Chilhari, Tehsil Bandhavgarh, District Shahdol, on the ground that they had become the owner of the said land on account of an Exchange Deed executed between their father and defendant No. 1 who is the present appellant and is now represented through his legal representatives. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs by recording a finding to the effect that the Exchange Deed, Exhibit P-l, was unregistered and therefore did not confer any right or title on the respondent/plaintiffs and that they have failed to establish that they were in possession of Khasra No. 2148. The First Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, has set aside the judgment of the trial Court by recording a finding to the effect that Exhibit P-1, the alleged Exchange Deed was 30 years old and, therefore, had to be believed and that there was ambiguity between the evidence of the parties regarding possession and in such circumstances has allowed the appeal. 3. The appeal, filed by the appellants, was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law : - "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge, was justified in exercising his discretion for the purposes of drawing presumption under section 90 of the Evidence Act, when the same was not done by the trial Court ? 2. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge, was justified in holding on the basis of Ex.P. 1 that plaintiffs became the owner of suit land (Khasra No. 2148) on the basis of an exchange ? 3. 2. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge, was justified in holding on the basis of Ex.P. 1 that plaintiffs became the owner of suit land (Khasra No. 2148) on the basis of an exchange ? 3. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant continues to be the Bhumiswami of suit land, i.e. Khasra No. 2148 area 3.27 Decimal ?" 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted and urged that the Appellate Court has grossly erred in law by drawing a presumption in respect of Exhibit P-l by taking aid of section 90 of the Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as the said provision was not attracted in the present case on account of the fact that the respondent/plaintiffs had failed to establish that the document was 30 years old and that the original defendant Shankerlal, who is said to have written and signed the document, has himself denied signing or writing the same. The learned counsel for the appellants has further urged that Exhibit P-l, which is said to be an Exchange Deed, was required to be compulsorily registered but as the said document is unregistered, it does not confer any right or title upon the respondent/plaintiffs nor was it ever acted upon and in such circumstances the Appellate Court has erred in believing the said document and decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs by placing reliance on the same. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that the evidence on record indicates that the appellant/defendants were in possession of the land and in such circumstances the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs should have been dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, submits that the Exchange Deed, Exhibit P-1, was recorded by the original defendant No. 1 Shankerlal on 8 Kunwar Bhadra Samvat 1999 and pursuant to the said Exchange Deed the respondent/plaintiffs were placed in possession of Khasra No. 2148 while the original defendant Shankerlal was placed in possession of Khasra No. 836 and since then they were in respective possession of the said khasra numbers, though the land in question continued to be recorded in the name of the original owners. It is submitted that in the year 1977 the original defendant No. 1 Shankerlal sold the land i.e. Khasra No. 836 to Kamla Prasad, P.W-2, by a registered sale deed while the respondent/plaintiffs continued to remain in possession of Khasra No. 2148. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court has not committed any perversity or material irregularity in allowing the first appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiffs. 7.1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court as well as on extensive scrutiny of the record, it is clear that Exhibit P-l, the alleged Exchange Deed, is an unregistered document though it was required to be compulsorily registered. It is also clear from a perusal of the statements of P.W-2 Kamla Prasad, P.W-3 Balak Das Gupta and P.W-7 Kathura, that the respondent/plaintiffs' own witnesses have stated that they do not know the exact date when the Exchange Deed was executed and have also asserted that it was 15 to 20 years old and, therefore, there is no evidence on record to indicate or establish that the document Exhibit P-l was executed 30 years prior to the filing of the suit or that the document in question was more than 30 years old. 8. Quite apart from the above, as D.W-1 Shankerlal, the original defendant who is said to have written and signed the document Exhibit P-l, has himself clearly stated and denied the writing and signing of the said document, no presumption in respect of the document could have been drawn or can be drawn under section 90 of the Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court in this regard being perverse and unsustainable, deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the first substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered accordingly. 10. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court in this regard being perverse and unsustainable, deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the first substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered accordingly. 10. From a perusal of the record, it is also clear that the document, Exhibit P-l, conferring right on the land was required to be compulsorily registered but was not registered and consequently does not confer or convey any right or title upon the respondent/plaintiffs and, therefore, the second substantial question of law framed by this Court is also answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent/plaintiffs and it is held that the respondent/plaintiffs do not acquire any right or title upon Khasra No. 2148 on the strength of Exhibit P-1, the unregistered Exchange Deed. 11. From a perusal of the record it is also clear that it is an admitted fact that the name of the original appellant Shankerlal continued to be recorded as the owner of Khasra No. 2148 in the Revenue Records. Quite apart from the above, Exhibits P-2 to P-5, filed by the respondent/plaintiffs, to establish possession only relate to the year 1962 to 1965. No other document has been filed by the respondent/plaintiffs to indicate as to whether they were in possession prior or subsequent to the said years. 12. Even otherwise, from a perusal of Exhibit P-5 it is clear that the entry regarding possession of the respondent/plaintiffs on the basis of an Exchange Deed appears to have been added subsequently as the colour of the ink and the handwriting differs and the said addition is not signed or attested by any revenue Officer and, therefore, has rightly been ignored by the trial Court. Moreover, the averments made by the respondent/plaintiffs in the plaint itself and the statement of the plaintiffs' witnesses Kamla Prasad, P.W-2 and Kathura, P.W-7 also make it clear that the respondent/plaintiffs were not in possession of the land on the date of filing of the suit. 13. Moreover, the averments made by the respondent/plaintiffs in the plaint itself and the statement of the plaintiffs' witnesses Kamla Prasad, P.W-2 and Kathura, P.W-7 also make it clear that the respondent/plaintiffs were not in possession of the land on the date of filing of the suit. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the first Appellate Court has committed gross irregularity in appreciating the evidence on record as well as in applying the provisions of section 90 of the Act, in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiffs and that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court deserves to be and are hereby answered in favour of the appellants. 14. The appeal, filed by the appellants/defendants, is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 24-1-1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Umaria, District Shahdol in First Appeal No. 7-A/95 is hereby set aside. 15. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs. Appeal allowed.