Registered instrument required for transfer of immovable property; oral exchange, mutation, and unproved authority could not validate title.

An exchange of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 could not be effected orally, because rights in such property had to be created or transferred through a registered instrument; an unregistered arrangement could not affect title or support the mutation, and a sale founded on that invalid exchange could not stand. The alleged exchange also could not bind the plaintiffs because no authority of their father to act for them was proved, and the first appellate court erred by accepting unsupported inferences and shifting the burden. The appellate decree was set aside and the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether oral exchange of immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 was legally permissible and could support the impugned mutation and sale transaction; (ii) whether the plaintiffs were bound by the alleged exchange through their father in the absence of proof of authority, and whether the first appellate court's contrary findings were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether oral exchange of immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 was legally permissible and could support the impugned mutation and sale transaction.

Analysis: The governing rule is that instruments creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing rights in immovable property of the requisite value must be registered, and an unregistered document cannot affect the property or be relied upon as evidence of the transaction. On that basis, an oral exchange of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 was held impermissible in law. Mutation entries are fiscal in character and do not by themselves create title, and the sale founded on such an invalid exchange could not stand.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs were bound by the alleged exchange through their father in the absence of proof of authority, and whether the first appellate court's contrary findings were sustainable.

Analysis: In the absence of proof that the father had authority to act for the plaintiffs, his presence or conduct could not bind them. The first appellate court was found to have improperly shifted the burden, relied on an unproved premise of authority, and drawn unwarranted inferences. Its acceptance of the alleged exchange was also inconsistent with the legal requirement of a registered instrument for transfer of rights in immovable property. The resulting findings were held to be perverse and contrary to law.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate decree could not be sustained, and the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer or exchange creating rights in immovable property of the requisite value must be effected through a registered instrument, and mutation entries or unproven agency cannot validate an otherwise ineffective transfer or confer title.

---