JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. Briefly stated, the facts leading up to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a revenue suit before the SDO-Begu, District Chittorgarh (for short 'the trial court') under section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for declaration of khatedari rights. It was averred therein by the petitioner that he came into possession of the suit property vide sale deed dated 03.08.1976 executed in his favor by one Smt. Mohan Kumari for a total sale consideration of Rs. 99/- only. 2. The trial Court decreed the petitioner's suit inter alia holding that the petitioner was having continuous possession of the subject property for more than 12 years. The trial Court though observed that the document dated 03.08.1976 was not properly stamped and was required to be registered, decreed the suit and directed the patwari to mutate the land in petitioner's name in case the petitioner deposits the applicable registration charges or (sic stamp duty). 3. Aggrieved from the decree of the trial court the respondent preferred an appeal under section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority which allowed the appeal inter alia holding that the trial court was not correct in decreeing the suit on the basis of adverse possession, as there was no issue framed in this regard. The Revenue Appellate Authority further held that the valuation of the land was not correctly indicated in the sale deed dated 03.08.1976, and the same was done to avoid registration. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred second appeal before Board of Revenue, Ajmer but the learned member of the Board dismissed petitioner's appeal holding that upon depositing a sum of Rs. 9,860/- the document dated 03.08.1976 can be said to be appropriately stamped but it would still continue to be an invalid document sans registration, because as per the provisions contained in section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and section 17 of the Registration Act, an unregistered sale deed cannot convey a valid title. 5. Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had decreed his suit after considering the oral and ocular evidence led by the petitioner and further considering that no evidence on behalf of the respondent was led. He asserted that the findings recorded by the trial Court were infallible. 6. 5. Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had decreed his suit after considering the oral and ocular evidence led by the petitioner and further considering that no evidence on behalf of the respondent was led. He asserted that the findings recorded by the trial Court were infallible. 6. He further submitted that the Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh had erred in allowing the appeal vide order dated 07.01.2005 and setting aside the order of the trial Court and the Board of Revenue is upholding the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. 7. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authorities, learned counsel argued that since the property in question was purchased by the petitioner for a sale consideration of less than Rs. 100/-, registration was not required. 8. Heard and perused the material available on record. 9. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 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 immoveable 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 immoveable 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 immoveable 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 immoveable 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." 10. A simple reading of the provision aforesaid reveals that a property of the value less than Rs. 100/- can either be sold by way of handing over the possession or by way of a registered document. 11. In the present case, since a document dated 03.08.1976 came to be executed, the sale could not have been complete without such document being registered under provisions of Registration Act. 12. In the opinion of this Court, merely because the petitioner had paid stamp duty of Rs. 11. In the present case, since a document dated 03.08.1976 came to be executed, the sale could not have been complete without such document being registered under provisions of Registration Act. 12. In the opinion of this Court, merely because the petitioner had paid stamp duty of Rs. 9,860/- on the document in question pursuant to direction of learned trial Court, the same cannot fill or cure the inherent lacuna in the title. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 07.01.2005 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, which has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its order dated 01.05.2019. 14. Writ petition, therefore, fails. 15. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.