JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra, H.P., in CA No. 154-C/2003, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2003, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class-II, Dehra, H.P., in CS No. 30/99, whereby suit for declaration, injunction and consequential relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction having been filed by the plaintiff-appellant (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff"), came to be decreed. 2. For having bird's eye view, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession against the respondents-defendants (for short the defendants) in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ist Class-II, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., averring therein that he is in possession of the land compromised in khata No.52 min, Khatauni No. 97 and khasra Nos. 222, 148 and 169, Kita 3, area measuring 1-15-74 hects, and land comprised in khata No.5 Min, Khatauni No. 97, field No.219 area measuring 0-17- 18 hects, total land measuring 0-17-18 Hects., situate in Mohal Dareen, Mauza Gagruhi, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and is entitled to remain in its possession in future also. By way of aforesaid suit, plaintiff also sought declaration to the effect that order dated 22.12.1992 with regard to the exchange of the suit land along with other land is wrong and illegal and as such, not binding upon him. Plaintiff claimed before the court below that land comprised in khata No. 52 min, khatauni No. 97 Min, filed Nos. 169, 148, 200, 222 and 201 kita 5 area measuring 5-35-68 Hects., situate in Mohal Dareen Mauza Gagruhi, Tehsil Dehra District Kanra, H.P., is recorded in the ownership and possession of the defendants, but previously, this land was recorded in ownership and possession of the plaintiff as per jamabandi for the year 1986-87. Plaintiff pleaded before the court below that he is recorded in the possession qua the land comprised in khata No. 44 min, khatauni No. 92, field Nos. Plaintiff pleaded before the court below that he is recorded in the possession qua the land comprised in khata No. 44 min, khatauni No. 92, field Nos. 211 and 254 to the extent of 1/4th share as per Jamabandi for the year, 1986-87, whereas defendants are recorded as owners in possession over the land comprised in kahasra No. 775, 776 790, measuring 1-66-52 Hects., as per Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 to the extent of 25533 shares out of 31976 shares and they are recorded owner in possession of the land comprised in field No. 219. Plaintiff took a stand before the court below that about 10 to 11 years back, he and defendants entered into an oral agreement for the exchange of their land i.e. 20 kanals. The plaintiff offered the land comprised in field Nos. 200 and 201 to the defendants in exchange of defendants' land comprised in field No. 219 and also land measuring 0-74-08 hects., out of the field No 790. Possession was transferred at spot on the basis of aforesaid oral agreement, where after defendants built their house in field No. 210, whereas plaintiff remained in possession of field No. 219. As per the plaintiff, mutation was not effected properly on the basis of exchange and defendants in collusion with Patwari got field Nos. 148, 169 and 222, entered in mutation of exchange wrongly at the back of the plaintiff. He further averred in the plaint that field Nos. 148 and 169 are near to the road having commercial value, whereas land of the defendants is nowhere near the road at all. He averred in the plaint that factum with regard to the aforesaid mutation came to his knowledge when one Sh. Anant Ram of Mohal Dareen, Mauza Gagruhi got his land demarcated and the Kanoongo, disclosed that field Nos. 148 and 169 had been recorded in the ownership of the defendants despite the fact that plaintiff was in possession of the field Nos. 148 &169 on the spot. Plaintiff also took a plea before the court below that land compromised in field Nos. 148, 169 and 222 were never given nor intended to be given in exchange and as such, same has been wrongly entered in the ownership of the defendants by way of mutation No. 76 dated 28.12.1992. 3. 148 &169 on the spot. Plaintiff also took a plea before the court below that land compromised in field Nos. 148, 169 and 222 were never given nor intended to be given in exchange and as such, same has been wrongly entered in the ownership of the defendants by way of mutation No. 76 dated 28.12.1992. 3. Defendants by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiff in his complaint on the ground of maintainability limitation, valuation and cause of action. On merits, defendants denied the averments contained in the complaint in toto and contended that mutation was rightly attested and sanctioned by the Tehsildar and as such, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. Subsequently, plaintiff by way of amendment, amended para No.3 of the plaint, wherein he pleaded that the defendants had entered into written agreement with the plaintiff on 8.9.1980 and no oral agreement was ever entered into by the parties as was earlier pleaded. 5. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned trial court below framed following issues:- "1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Relief." 6. Subsequently, on the basis of evidence led on record by the respective parties, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 26.6.2003, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared him to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in khata No. 52 min khatauni 97, khasra No. 222, 148 and 169 kita 3, area measuring 0-15-74 hects., and land comprised in khata No. 52 Min, Khatauni No. 97 field No. 219, area measuring 0-02-10 Hects., situate in Mohal Dareen Mauza Gagruhi Tehsil Dehra District Kangra, H.P. Learned court also held mutation No. 76 dated 22.12.1992, to be wrong and illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and accordingly, restrained the defendants permanently from causing any interference in the plaintiff's possession qua the aforesaid suit land. 7. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, respondents-defendants preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC in the Court of learned Additional District Judge II, Kangra, Dharamshala, H.P., who vide judgment dated 31.3.2008 accepted the appeal having been filed by the defendants and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2003, passed by the learned trial Court, as a consequence of which, suit having been filed by the plaintiff, came to be dismissed. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of the judgment dated 26.6.2003, passed by the learned trial Court after setting aside judgment of reversal recorded by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. 8. This Court vide order dated 23.6.2008, admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2. "1.Whether the lower appellate Court has totally misread and misconstrued the documents Ext.PW-1/B? 2.Whether the learned lower Appellate Court could not have quashed the agreement Ext.PW-1/B, without there being any prayer in his behalf?" 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the record of the case. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused evidence collected on record by the respective parties vis-a-vis impugned judgment dated 31.3.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff that learned first appellate Court while reversing the judgment of learned trial court, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed, has mis-read and misconstrued the documents, especially, Ext.PW1/B, whereby parties to the lis had entered into a written agreement with regard to exchange of suit land with the land of the defendants, rather having carefully perused pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties, this court has no hesitation to conclude that learned first appellate Court, while returning the findings, as contained in impugned judgment, has failed to appreciate the material placed before it in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come to the fore. Though at the first instance, plaintiff in the plaint had set up a case that he and the defendants had entered into an oral agreement for exchange of their land, whereby he had offered his land comprised in field Nos. 202 and 201 to the defendants in exchange of defendants land comprised in field No. 219 and land measuring 0-74-08 hects., out of field No. 79, but subsequently, by way of amendment, he amended para-3 of the plaint and pleaded that defendants had entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff on 8.9.1980 and exchange was not effected on the basis of oral agreement, rather same was effected on the basis of written agreement. 11. Careful perusal of zimini order dated 21.6.2001, passed by the learned trial Court, clearly reveals that defendants chose not to file reply to the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17, praying therein for amendment of para-3 of the plaint despite sufficient opportunity afforded to them, rather during the course of arguments, counsel representing the defendants gave no objection, which statement of him to that effect stands recorded and is part of the record. Otherwise also, defendant No.1 (DW1) in his cross-examination has categorically admitted the execution of the written agreement Ext.PW1/B. He also identified his signatures on the same. During his cross-examination, he admitted that on the basis of agreement (Ext.PW1/B), there was exchange of land inter-se parties. During his cross-examination, he volunteered to state that mutation on the basis of written agreement Ext.PW1/B was attested in the year, 1992. He further admitted that there was no other exchange of land with the plaintiff except the land which has been effected on the basis of Ext.PW1/B. Hence, in view of the above, it can be safely concluded that there is no dispute, if any, with regard to averments contained in para-3 of the plaint, which subsequently, came to be amended that parties to the lis had entered into an agreement, agreeing thereby to exchange the suit land with the land of the defendant. If the aforesaid admission having been made by the defendant (DW1) in his cross-examination, is read, juxtaposing mutation No.76 placed on record as Ext.P1, it certainly compels this Court to agree with Mr. If the aforesaid admission having been made by the defendant (DW1) in his cross-examination, is read, juxtaposing mutation No.76 placed on record as Ext.P1, it certainly compels this Court to agree with Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff that mutation which was admittedly attested on 27.12.1992 was wrongly entered because perusal of written agreement Ext.PW1/B itself suggests that suit land was never the subject matter of the agreement arrived inter-se parties and as such, mutation, if any, on the basis of aforesaid agreement is otherwise of no consequence. Learned trial Court taking into consideration written agreement Ext.PW1/B arrived at a conclusion that parties to the suit had exchanged the land in suit and by way of same, defendants had given land measuring 0-01-62 hects., comprised in khasra No. 736, measuring 1-26-22 hects., out of khasra No. 752 i.e. total land 1-27-84 hects., to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court on the basis of aforesaid document (Ext.PW1/B) further arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff had given in exchange the land comprised in khasra Nos. 211, 254, 203, 204, 251 205, 209, 210 and 201, measuring 1-27-84 hects., to the defendants and the possession was also delivered on the spot, whereas as has been noticed herein above, careful perusal of Ext.P1 i.e. mutation No. 76 clearly reveals that same has not been attested on the basis of written compromise Ext.PW1/B, rather there is reference in the column of remarks that mutation was entered on the basis of oral exchange, but such remarks otherwise appear to be wrong, especially, in view of the statement of defendant-DW1, wherein he in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that there was no other oral compromise or agreement with regard to the exchange save and except written agreement Ext.PW1/B and as such, learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that defendants have not been able to show, as to how, the mutation No. 76 came into existence, especially, when there was no oral exchange. 12. This Court was unable to lay its hand to evidence, if any, led on record by the defendants that save and except written agreement Ext.PW1/B, oral agreement agreeing therein for exchange of the suit land with the land of the defendant, ever came into existence inter-se parties and as such, learned trial court rightly held that mutation Ext.PW1 based upon written compromise Ext.PW1/B cannot be held to be legal. 13. 13. Learned first appellate Court while reversing findings returned by the learned trial court arrived at a conclusion that since written agreement Ext.PW1/B was executed by the minor and others, that being void could not be given effect to and as such, held written compromise Ext.PW1/B to be illegal. Whether written agreement Ext.PW1/B was void/voidable, was not a question to be decided by the first appellate Court in the appeal filed before him, because admittedly no challenge, if any, to the same on the ground, as has been taken by the learned first appellate Court, came to be laid to the written compromise by the defendant or either of the parties, rather sole question needed to be determined by the courts below was whether mutation No. 76 Ext.P1 attested on 27.12.1992 was based on written compromise Ext.PW1/B or oral agreement as claimed by the defendants. Though, this Court in earlier part of the judgment has already held that no mutation, if any, could be effected on the basis of Ext.PW1/B because bare perusal of same, clearly reveals that plaintiff never intended to get the suit land as mentioned in written agreement exchanged with the land of the defendants. But since specific case of the defendants was that land came to be recorded in their name on the basis of oral exchange, they ought to have led on record some specific evidence to prove oral agreement, if any, inter-se parties, which is altogether missing. 14. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court in the instant proceedings, is not necessarily called upon to return a finding whether written compromise Ext. PB, executed inter-se plaintiff and defendant No.1, who was minor at that relevant time, can be termed to be void/voidable, especially when there is no specific challenge, if any, on the ground as has been applied by the learned first appellate Court while terming written agreement Ext.PW1/B to be void/voidable. Similarly, no issue with regard to the validity of written compromise Ext.PB ever came to be raised on behalf of the defendants and as such, learned first appellate Court ought not have gone into that question, especially when claim of the defendants is that mutation No. 76 attested on 27.12.1992 Ext.P1 was recorded on the basis of oral agreement. 15. Similarly, no issue with regard to the validity of written compromise Ext.PB ever came to be raised on behalf of the defendants and as such, learned first appellate Court ought not have gone into that question, especially when claim of the defendants is that mutation No. 76 attested on 27.12.1992 Ext.P1 was recorded on the basis of oral agreement. 15. Leaving everything aside, as per Section 17 of the Registrations Act, 1908, any document or instrument, which purports or intends to create right, title to an immovable property, would be registered and in case same is not registered, it would not affect any immovable property comprised therein or moreover it cannot be allowed as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, especially when valuation of the property in question is more than Rs. 100. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment passed by this Court in case titled Piar Chand and Ors v. Sant Ram and Ors, (2017) 2 ShimLC 886 , relevant paras whereof are being reproduced herein below:- "22.At this stage, this Court deems it fit to take note of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which is reproduced herein below:- "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.- (l) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:- (a) instruments of gift of immovable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; 1[(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:] Provided that the 2[State Government] may, by order published in the 3[Official Gazette], exempt from the operation of this subsection any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees. 4 [(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.] (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (l) applies to- (i) any composition deed; or (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or (v) 5[any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or (vi) any decree or order of a Court 1 [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or (vii) any grant of immovable property by 2[Government]; or (viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or (ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or 3[(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, (6 of 1890) vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or] (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer. 4[Explanation.-A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.] (3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered. ... ... ... ... ..." Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under:- "49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by section 17 1[or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: 1[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) 2,3 [***] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]... ... ... ..." 23. Perusal of aforesaid Section 17 clearly suggests that document/instrument, which intends/purports to create right/title to an immovable property having value of Rs.100/- should be registered. Similarly, perusal of Section 49 of the Act suggests that documents, which are required to be registered under Section 17 shall not affect any immovable property; comprised therein or confer any power to adopt or to receive any evidence to any transaction affecting the said property or conferring power unless it has been registered. 24. After having carefully perused aforesaid provisions of law, this Court is of the view that Ex.P-1 as well as Ex.DX, which were admittedly not registered documents, as prescribed/defined under Section 17 of the Act, could not be read in evidence by learned first appellate Court, especially, in the absence of any registered relinquishment deed made by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. 25. 25. As per Section 17 of the aforesaid Act, any document or instrument, which purports or intends to create title should be registered and in case same is not registered, it would not affect any immovable property comprised therein or moreover it could not be allowed as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. 26. In this regard, this Court deems it fit to rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Through Director vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2009) 7 SCC 363 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "15. The Registration Act, 1908, was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration. 16. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future "any right, title or interest" whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs.100 and upwards to or in immovable property. 17. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. 18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person/s presently having right, title, and interest in the property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person/s presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified. (pp.367-368) 27. Perusal of aforesaid law, having been laid by Hon'ble Apex Court, clearly suggests that title of immovable property, having value of more than Rs.100/-, can only be transferred by registered documents, as provided under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Similarly, it also emerge from the aforesaid judgment that no document as required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property unless it is registered. 28. Reliance is also placed upon SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 66 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "11. Section 49 makes it clear that a document which is compulsorily registrable, if not registered, will not affect the immovable property comprised therein in any manner. It will also not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, except for two limited purposes. First is as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. Second is as evidence of any collateral transaction which by itself is not required to be effected by registered instrument. A collateral transaction is not the transaction affecting the immovable property, but a transaction which is incidentally connected with that transaction. The question is whether a provision for arbitration in an unregistered document (which is compulsorily registrable) is a collateral transaction, in respect of which such unregistered document can be received as evidence under the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act. (p.71) 29. The question is whether a provision for arbitration in an unregistered document (which is compulsorily registrable) is a collateral transaction, in respect of which such unregistered document can be received as evidence under the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act. (p.71) 29. In M/s.Kamakshi Builders vs. M/s. Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2191 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: "24. Acquiescence on the part of Respondent No.3, as has been noticed by the High Court, did not confer any title on Respondent No.1. Conduct may be a relevant fact, so as to apply the procedural law like estoppel, waiver or acquiescence, but thereby no title can be conferred. 25. It is now well-settled that time creates title. 26. Acquisition of a title is an inference of law arising out of certain set of facts. If in law, a person does not acquire title, the same cannot be vested only by reason of acquiescence or estoppel on the part of other. 27. It may be true that Respondent No.1 had constructed some buildings; but it did so at its own risk. If it thought that despite its status of a tenant, it would raise certain constructions, it must have taken a grave risk. There is nothing on record to show that such permission was granted. Although Respondent No.1 claimed its right, it did not produce any document in that behalf. No application for seeking such permission having been filed, an adverse inference in that behalf must be drawn." (p.2196) 30. In Satyawan and others vs. Raghubir, AIR 2002 (P&H) 290 , the Hon'ble Court has held as under:- "18. It was submitted that there is no difference between exchange and sale. Except that, in sale, title is transferred from the vendor to the vendee in consideration for price paid or promised to be paid. In exchange, the property of 'X' is exchanged by "A" with property "Y" belonging to "B". In this manner, the property is received in exchange of property. There is transfer of ownership of one property for the ownership of the other. It was submitted that prior to when decree dated 20.10.1992 was not passed, there was no title of "A" in property "Y" and there was no title of "B" in property "X". In this manner, the property is received in exchange of property. There is transfer of ownership of one property for the ownership of the other. It was submitted that prior to when decree dated 20.10.1992 was not passed, there was no title of "A" in property "Y" and there was no title of "B" in property "X". It was submitted that for the first time, the right was created in immovable property by decree and, therefore, that decree required registration. It was submitted that if there was no pre-existing right in the property worth more than Rs.100/- and the right was created in the immovable property for the first time by virtue of decree, that decree would require registration. In my opinion, oral exchange was not permissible in view of the amendment of Section 49 of the Registration Act brought about by Act No. 21 of 1929, which by inserting in Section 49 of the Registration Act the words "or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882" has made it clear that the documents of which registration is necessary under the Transfer of Property Act but not under the Registration Act falls within the scope of Section 49 of the Registration Act and if not registered are not admissible as evidence of any transaction affecting any immovable property comprised therein, and do not affect any such immovable property. Transaction by exchange which required to be affected through registered instrument if it was to affect any immovable property worth Rs.100 or more." (p.297) 31. In the instant case, though this Court is of the view that learned first appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by creating new case for defendants while placing reliance upon Ex.P-1 and Ex.DX, more particularly, when no such plea of 'Azadinama' was ever raised/taken by the defendants in the pleadings as well as evidence adduced before the trial Court, but even then if findings returned by learned first appellate Court qua entitlement of defendants to share in the suit property on the basis of aforesaid document is examined and tested in the light of aforesaid provisions of Registration Act, 1908, same cannot be held to be valid and in accordance with law. There is no relinquishment deed adduced on record by the defendants to prove their claim with regard to their having acquired share in the suit land and as such learned first appellate Court erred in while placing reliance upon Ex.P1, whereby, on the basis of oral Azadinama/relinquishment deed, share in the suit land has been ordered to be mutated in the name of defendants. 32. In the instant case, in view of aforesaid discussion having been made hereinabove, this Court is of definite view that no reliance, if any, could be placed by first appellate Court on 'Azadinama' Ex.P-1 to conclude that plaintiff had relinquished his share in favour of the defendants, more particularly, in the absence of registered relinquishment deed, if any, executed by the plaintiff. Since there was no registered relinquishment deed, mutation attested in favour of defendants, on the basis of Ex.P-1 is/was of no consequence and same could not be taken into consideration by the Court below while holding the defendant to be owners to the extent of share in the suit land." 16. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that no immovable property having value of more than Rs. 100 can be transferred without there being any registered document and any document or instrument, which purports or intends to create title should be registered and in case, same is not registered, it would not affect any immovable property comprised therein. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law relied upon, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that judgment of learned first appellate court cannot be allowed to sustain being totally contrary to the provisions of law as well as law laid down by this Court and as such, same is set-aside and judgment passed by the learned trial Court is restored. Hence, the appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.