JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No.48-S/13 of 2007 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, in Civil Suit No.712/1 of 1999/96, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The facts giving rise to the dispute between the parties, in brief, may be stated thus. 2. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.30/3, 30/1, measuring 3-2 bighas, situated in Mauja Thana, Pargana Garshyang, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. It was averred that in the year 1973, mutation No.100 was attested by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade with regard to oral sale of 6 biswas of land in favour of the respondent/defendant, now deceased, (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). By another mutation No.115 dated 26.09.1980 the land measuring 5 biswas denoted by Khasra No.62/1 was shown to have been exchanged with the land measuring Khasra No.63/2 of the defendant, who had also been shown in possession of land Khasra No.122/62, 124/63 measuring 10 biswas. Aggrieved by sanction of these mutations, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the oral sale deed dated 21.09.1973 was illegal, inoperative and not binding on his right, title or interest and mutation No.100 of the same date was illegal and not tenable. Further, the exchange alleged to have been taken place by mutation No.115 dated 26.09.1980 was also not legal and binding. 3. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit on account of bar under Section 57 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 was raised. It was also alleged that the plaintiff was estopped by his acts, conduct, deeds and acquiescences etc. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as the mutations with regard to oral sale and exchange had been attested in the years 1973 and 1980, respectively, whereas, the suit had come to be instituted only in the year 1996. It was also denied that the mutation was not binding upon the plaintiff. 4. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as the mutations with regard to oral sale and exchange had been attested in the years 1973 and 1980, respectively, whereas, the suit had come to be instituted only in the year 1996. It was also denied that the mutation was not binding upon the plaintiff. 4. The learned trial Court framed the following issued on 15.07.1997:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration qua the sale deed dated 21.9.1973 which is stated illegal, inoperative and not binding on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the mutation No.100 dated 21.9.1973 is also illegal? OPP. 3. Whether the exchange of land qua 5 biswas of land has never took place in between the parties and the mutation No.115 is illegal and wrong? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 57 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts, conducts, deeds and acquiescences? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 8. Relief.” 5. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and evaluating the same dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appeal filed by him also met the same fate vide judgment and decree passed to this effect by the learned first appellate Court on 31.12.2007. It is against both these judgments that the instant appeal has been filed. 6. This Court vide order dated 15.09.2008 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether oral sale of land, market value of which is more than Rs.100/- can be effected without registered documents within the meaning of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act? 2. Whether the wrong entry in the revenue records has to be challenged within a period of three years of mutation more especially when such entry does not create any title in the property?” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Question No.1. 7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (for short the ‘Act’) reads thus:- “54. Question No.1. 7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (for short the ‘Act’) reads thus:- “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. Contract for sale - A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” 8. It is well settled that oral agreement is legal and valid inasmuch as written agreement of sale. Therefore, even under Section 54 of the Act ibid, it is not necessary that an agreement of sale should be in writing and there is no prohibition of an oral contract of sale. 9. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council considered the question of sale of immovable property of the value of less than Rs. 100/- in Mathura Prashad and others versus Chandra Narayan Chowdhury and others AIR 1921 Privy Council 8 wherein it was categorically held that if there is sale of tangible immovable property of the value of less than Rs. 100/-, one mode of sale is by executing a registered sale deed, but if the registered instrument is not executed by the vendors, the other mode present is by way of sale of such immovable property of the value of less than Rs. 100/- is by oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession. It was further held that Section 54 of the Act ibid itself provides that delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer or such person as he may direct in possession of the property. 10. 100/- is by oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession. It was further held that Section 54 of the Act ibid itself provides that delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer or such person as he may direct in possession of the property. 10. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it can safely be held that oral sale of land, the market value of which is more than Rs. 100/- cannot be effected except by way of a registered document. However, the said question is only rendered academic in the present case as the value of the property is only Rs. 80/- and, therefore, the property in question could have conveniently been transferred by way of oral sale accompanied by delivery of possession. Question No.2. 11. There can be no dispute that the revenue records are not the documents of title and mutation in itself does not confer any title. But, the question in the instant case is that what would be the best piece of evidence in a case of oral sale where no document has been prepared, save and except, a mutation to this effect is entered in the revenue records. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously argue that the mutations in the revenue records are not documents of title and would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ch. S. Hanumantha Rao & Ors. versus R. Sainath & Ors. 1999 (3) Civil Court Cases 447 (A.P.) and judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sawarni versus Smt. Inder Kaur & Ors. 1997 (1) Civil Court Cases 1 (S.C.), Balwant Singh and another versus Daulat Singh (dead) by LRS. and others 1997 (7) SCC 137 and judgment rendered by this Court in Mohammad Iqbal versus Government of India & Ors. 1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 445 (H.P.). 13. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. In my considered opinion, though no presumption of truth can perse be attached to the mutation entry, but in case of oral sale, the same can definitely be looked into. 14. 1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 445 (H.P.). 13. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. In my considered opinion, though no presumption of truth can perse be attached to the mutation entry, but in case of oral sale, the same can definitely be looked into. 14. That apart, the question still remains as to what is the evidence led by the plaintiff to even remotely indicate that he was still in possession of the property which, if proved, would infact go a long way to establish that the sale was fraudulent. Having perused the entire case file including the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, I do not find any material placed on record by the plaintiff whereby it can be gathered that he is still in possession of the suit land. 15. Indisputably, mutation No.100 was attested on 21.09.1973 and thereafter mutation No.115 was attested on 26.09.1980, whereas, the suit came to be filed after 23 years of the first mutation and about 16 years after the attestation of the second mutation. What prevented the plaintiff from questioning these mutations earlier is not forthcoming, especially, when there is no evidence led to the effect that he was ignorant about these mutations. 16. A perusal of the mutation would show that not only the plaintiff had sold the land in question, but he had even delivered its possession. This was so recorded in the mutation. Therefore, in such circumstances, when there was a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have obtained a declaration in terms of Article 58 of the Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for limitation of three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. 17. Further, if the plaintiff claims that the mutation in such cases does not confer any title, then why the present suit. After-all, the suit filed by the plaintiff only seeks a declaration for holding the above two mutations not binding upon him. 18. 17. Further, if the plaintiff claims that the mutation in such cases does not confer any title, then why the present suit. After-all, the suit filed by the plaintiff only seeks a declaration for holding the above two mutations not binding upon him. 18. On the basis of the pleadings and material placed on record, it can safely be concluded that the suit in the instant case was required to be filed, if not within three years, then within a reasonable time, but, in any event, the same could not have been filed after 16-23 years of attestation of the mutations, particularly, when there is no evidence led by the plaintiff to indicate that he was ignorant about these mutations. Indisputably, after the attestation of the mutation No.100, the consolidation proceedings had also taken place which in turn had led to the recording of mutation No.115 which too has been assailed only after a gap of 16 years. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.