HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.5349 of 2010 31ST DCEMBER 2010 Between:- Smt.Velga Ahalyamma and another .. Petitioners And Velga Pulla Reddy .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.5349 of 2010 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in O.S.No.116 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, dated 13-9-2010, by which the Trial Court held that a document dated 16-4-1974 cannot be marked. The document was attempted to be tendered into evidence through P.W.2 by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff before the Trial Court which was objected to by the learned Counsel for the defendant before the Trial Court. The Trial Court opined that an unregistered document cannot be admitted in evidence as per Section 49 of the Registration Act except for collateral purpose but when the document itself is said to be the suit document, the Trial Court felt that it cannot be marked even for a collateral purpose. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court. Smt. L.Shiva Kalpana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, the learned Counsel for the respondent are heard. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has placed before the Court for perusal the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, on 5-3-2003 impounding the document in question directing the payment of Rs.100/- towards stamp duty and Rs.500/- towards penalty and the learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that accordingly the Stamp Duty and Penalty were paid. On payment of Stamp Duty and Penalty, notwithstanding that the document was not sufficiently stamped originally, any prohibition under the Stamp Act against admission of such document into evidence does not arise. The revision petitioner who claimed to have brought the payment of stamp duty and penalty to the notice of the Trial Court claims that the sale deed dated 16-4-1974, though unregistered, is sought to be admitted into evidence only to show the nature of possession. The prohibition against admission of an unregistered document into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act is not absolute, as under the Stamp Act and a document can be admitted into evidence, though unregistered in spite of being compulsorily registerable, for a collateral purpose. The suit is one for permanent injunction and the document is claimed to be produced in evidence to show the nature of the possession of the plaintiff over the property which cannot be claimed to be a primary purpose in such a suit. The contention has all the force to be considered favourably and how it becomes inadmissible even for a collateral purpose is unintelligible. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the document dated 16-4-1974 on which stamp duty and penalty have already been paid shall be permitted to be tendered into evidence by the Trial Court for a collateral purpose, of course, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law in that regard. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. ________________________ G.Bhavani Prasad,J 31st December,2010 smr