IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.5022 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 04.08.2010 **** Jarnail Singh and another . . . . Appellants VS. Rajinder Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Satish Goel, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. Plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration that they have become owners and are in possession of the property in dispute by virtue of a memorandum of partition executed on the basis of an oral exchange. Both the Courts below have found that the documents have been proved but the transaction was found to be in praesenti and as such it was not taken into evidence for want of registration. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in appreciating the document as the said document is a Yadashat of a transaction which had been earlier carried out between the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants has read-over the document in Court from which it is clear that the document was executed in praesenti. The fact of the exchange of the property was brought by virtue of the said document only. It is now well settled that if a document which confers title of the immoveable property of more than Rs.100/- then the said document is required to be registered in terms of Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) and since the said document is not registered, it is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 49(c) of the Act. In the present case both the Courts below have held that the document is not Registered as per Section 17 of the Act and it is inadmissible. As such no decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the purpose of declaration of the title on the basis of said documents. No question of law much less substantial has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, this appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 04.08.2010 JUDGE Vivek