THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3168 of 2010 Dated:17.09.2010 Between: Pitta Kumari. ….Petitioner And Samanthula Surya Prakasa Rao. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3168 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the proceedings (docket order) dated 29.06.2010 of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, in O.S.No.826 of 2003. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for injunction. During the trial, the defendant sought to mark an unregistered agreement of sale as proof of oral agreement. The petitioner objected. Overruling the objection, the learned trial Judge recorded the proceedings that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Kaladevi v V.R.Somasundaram[1], an unregistered agreement of sale can be received in evidence. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by this. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner this Court is convinced that no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Indisputably, the respondent filed another suit, being O.S.No.226 of 2003, on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur. In the said suit when the respondent sought to mark the possessory agreement of sale dated 20.06.1994 the petitioner objected, which was overruled. If that be so, when a document is marked in one connected suit and the same is not marked in the other suit it would be incongruous. Further, Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, does not bar the receiving of an unregistered document for a collateral purpose if such document is not required to be registered. In S.Kaladevi the Supreme Court held as under. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of 1908 Act. The agreement, which the respondent sought to mark, is a possessory agreement, dated 20.06.1994, and therefore, there cannot be any valid objection. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.09.2010 vs [1] (2010) 5 SCC 401 : AIR 2010 SC 1654 : 2010 (3) ALT 58 (SC)