Judgment Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered by this Court in the plaintiffs' second appeal is as under:- "Whether title can be acquired on exchange of land? If so, on whom burden of proof lie?" [For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the Trial Court]. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- 2.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming decree of permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit, also claimed relief of recovery of possession of land bearing khasra No. 59/1, area 1.04 acres situated at Village Nawagaon, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur stating inter alia that plaintiff No. 4 sold khasra No. 59/2, area 0.82 acres of land to the defendants by registered sale deed dated 23-4-1991 (Exh. P-4), and also sold khasra No. 59/1, area 1.50 acres by registered sale deed dated 29-4-1991 (Exh. P-5) to the defendants, and thereafter, they are still having 1.04 acres of the land, from which they have been forcibly dispossessed by the defendants without authority of law, therefore, they are entitled for decree as stated above. 2.2. The defendants filed their written statement and admitted the fact that they have purchased 2.32 acres of the land from the plaintiffs by two registered sale deeds dated 23-4-1991 and 29-4-1991. They also pleaded that the lands, which they have purchased vide Exhs. P-4 and P-5 plaintiffs were directed to be returned by Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of power under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, in lieu of that land, plaintiffs have given schedule suit land 1.04 acres to them in exchange, and revenue records have also been corrected, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for decree as claimed. 2.3. Upon pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as three issues and answered them accordingly as under:- dzekad okniz’u fu”d”kZ 1- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe [kljk uaEcj 59@1 jdck 1-04,] tks xzke uokxkao i-g-ua- 7 jk-fu-ea- dksVk rg- dksVk ftyk fcykliqj esa fLFkr gS] oknh ds LokfeRo ,oe~ vkf/kiR; dh Hkwfe gS \ ugha 2- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknh ds ‘kakfriw.kZ LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; esa izfr-x.k )kjk O;o/kku mRiUu fd;k tk jgk gS \ ugha 3- lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ iSjk 9 ds vuqlkj fu.kZ; ?kksf”kr 2.4. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 11-4-2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that they have failed to establish their title and possession over the suit land. 2.5. On appeal preferred by this appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC"), the First Appellate Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 21-10-2005, affirmed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. 3. Impugning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the judgment and decree dated 21-10-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2005, instant second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the plaintiffs, which has been admitted for final hearing on the substantial question of law as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 4. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that both the Courts below have committed manifest error of jurisdiction in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit land. He would further submit that the defendants have clearly admitted in their written statement that they have only purchased 2.32 acres of the land and claimed suit land on the basis of exchange, was required to establish the fact of exchange, which they have miserably failed, therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed and decree be granted in favour of plaintiffs. 5. As against this, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that the concurrent finding recorded by two Courts below holding that plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit land is a finding of fact based on evidence, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, considered rival submission made herein and also perused the records of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection. Answer to substantial question of law:- 7. In order to understand the controversy, it would be proper to have a brief survey of the plaint averments. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, considered rival submission made herein and also perused the records of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection. Answer to substantial question of law:- 7. In order to understand the controversy, it would be proper to have a brief survey of the plaint averments. The plaintiffs have clearly pleaded in the plaint that they sold khasra No. 59/1, area 1.50 acres by registered sale deed dated 29-4-1991 and khasra No. 59/2, area 0.82 acres by registered sale deed, dated 23-4-1991, thus, total 2.32 acres to the defendants, which the defendants have also admitted in their written statement. 8. It is the case of the plaintiffs, on the basis of illegal mutation, defendants attempted to dispossess from the remaining land, i.e., khasra No. 59/1, area 1.04 acres. Plaintiffs instituted a civil suit against the defendants and during pendency of the suit, defendants having been forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs illegally from the khasra No. 59/1 area 1.04 acres, pursuant to which, the amendment seeking recovery of possession was incorporated in the plaint on 18-11-2004. 9. Defendants, however, have taken a plea with regard to the suit land that the land sold as stated above vide Exhs. P-4 and P-5 have been directed to be returned to the original holder, i.e., plaintiffs by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and therefore, in lieu of those lands, suit land was given in exchange to the defendants on the basis of mutual consent, thereafter, the revenue records were accordingly corrected entering the name of the defendants. 10. The question which needs to be answered is whether defendants have acquired title on the basis of exchange in the instant case? 11. Though, the defendants have pleaded exchange of the suit land in lieu of land having been sold vide Exhs. P-4 and P-5, the question is whether defendants have discharged their burden, as they have asserted exchange of land. Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs the exchange by defining 'exchange', which reads as under:- "118. 'Exchange' defined.-When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an 'exchange'. Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs the exchange by defining 'exchange', which reads as under:- "118. 'Exchange' defined.-When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an 'exchange'. A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale." 12. A careful perusal of the aforestated definition of 'exchange' would show a transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale, as provided under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that transfer of tangible immovable property of a 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. 13. Turning back to the facts of the case, it would appear that though the plaintiffs have pleaded that in Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed for returned of land sold by the plaintiffs vide Exhs. P-4 and P-5 and in lieu of that land, the schedule suit land was given by plaintiffs to them on exchange. To establish the said fact, the plaintiffs have neither produced the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 nor filed any exchange deed as pleaded in the plaint. 14. Thereafter, during the course of evidence, the defendant Madhur Singh (D.W. 1) has clearly admitted in his cross-examination, Paragraph 14, that there was no such exchange of the land, and on the contrary in Paragraph 9, he stated that the value of suit land was Rs. 7,000/-, which he has purchased, but the sale deed has not been registered in his favour. Contrary to his plea of exchange, he has also admitted in Paragraph 15 that he has not given any land to the plaintiffs in exchange. 15. According to own showing of the defendant-Madhur Singh (D.W. 1), Market Value of the suit land was Rs. 7,000/-, which he has purchased, but the sale deed has not been registered in his favour. Contrary to his plea of exchange, he has also admitted in Paragraph 15 that he has not given any land to the plaintiffs in exchange. 15. According to own showing of the defendant-Madhur Singh (D.W. 1), Market Value of the suit land was Rs. 7,000/- and if the plea of exchange is accepted, then exchange can be made only by registered instrument as provided in Section 118 read Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, the defendants have failed to establish acquisition of title over the suit land by exchange. 16. As against this, the plaintiffs brought on evidence that vide Exh. P-4, the name of plaintiffs have been recorded as Bhumiswami, in which, Khasra No. 59/1, area 2,74, out of which, the plaintiffs have sold 1.50 acres of the land vide Exh. P-5 to the defendants and sold 0.20 acres of the land to Rameshwar and Jaleshwar Gond, and they are title-holder of remaining 1.04 acres of the land, in which, the defendants have not disputed their title asserting that suit land was given to them in lieu of land sold vide Exhs. P-4 and P-5. Thus, undisputedly they are the title-holders, which they have duly established during the course of the trial and on being dispossessed from the suit premises, they have amended the suit claiming relief of possession. 17. The Trial Court has committed manifest error of jurisdiction in dismissing the suit and the First Appellate Court has perpetuated illegality by affirming the same. The impugned judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court deserves to and is hereby set aside and plaintiffs' suit is decreed and it is directed that the defendants shall deliver vacant possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 59/1, area 1.04 acres situated at Village Nawagaon, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur to the plaintiffs. 18. In the result, the second appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs. 19. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. Appeal Partly Allowed.