THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVL REVISION PETITION NO.4449 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in I.A.No.83 of 2008 in O.S.No.205 of 2004 dated 10.07.2008. I.A.No.83 of 2008 is an application filed, by the defendant in the suit, requesting the Court to mark the documents filed along with the written statement, namely, the Agreement of Sale and the Gram Panchayat Sale Deed. The petitioner herein opposed the said I.A. and contended that since the Agreement of Sale, which was sought to be marked, was not a registered document, it could not be admitted in evidence, even for the collateral purpose of establishing possession over the property in question. The Trial Court relied on an order of this Court in C.R.P.No.3151 of 2007 dated 10.08.007, wherein it was held that the question whether an unregistered document could be looked into for the purpose of deciding the title between the parties was required to be examined by the Court below at the time of disposal of the suit, after consideration of the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side; and, at the threshold, the trial Court could not brush aside the documents on the ground that they were unregistered. Following the order of this Court, the Trial Court allowed the I.A. subject to consideration and evidentiary value of the document at the time of final disposal of the suit. Sri K.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff, would submit that in view of the amendment to Section 17 (1) (g) of the Registration Act, 2008, by Act 4 of 1999 with effect from 01.04.1999, even an Agreement of Sale of immovable property of a value exceeding Rs.100/- is required to be registered and, in the light of this amendment, the Court below could not have permitted the respondents-defendants to mark an unregistered Agreement of Sale as an exhibit. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 2008, deals with the effect of non-registration of the documents required to be registered and, under the proviso thereunder, an unregistered document effecting immovable property and required by the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by the registered instrument. In K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited[1], the Supreme Court held as under. “As we have already noted that, under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration act, 1908, an unregistered document can also be admitted into evidence for a collateral fact/collateral purpose. Let us now look at the meaning of “collateral purpose” and then ascertain whether Clause 9 of the lease agreement can be looked into for such collateral purpose. In Haran Chandra Chakrvarti Vs. Kaliprasanna Sarkar [AIR 1932 Cal 83 (2)], it was held that the terms of a compulsorily registrable instrument are nothing less than a transaction affecting the property comprised in it. It was also held that to use such an instrument for the purpose of proving such a term would not be using it for a collateral purpose and that the question as to who is the tenant and on what terms he has been created a tenant are not collateral facts but they are important terms of the contract of tenancy, which cannot be proved by admission of an unregistered lease-deed into evidence.” The question whether the unregistered Agreement of Sale could be relied upon as evidence to establish title or possession is also a matter which the Trial Court is required to go into while finally adjudicating the suit. As Sri K.S.Gopalakrishnan, Learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff, would express apprehension that the observations of the Court below that the documents which are permitted to be marked are subject to consideration and evidentiary value at the time of final disposal of the suit, does not include an examination of the question whether an unregistered Agreement of Sale can at all be looked into, it is made clear that this question shall also be examined by the Court below at the time of disposal of the suit. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 24th June 2010 RRB [1] 2008 INDLAW SC 818