( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 21 of 1999 under Sec,115 c. P. C. praying to set aside the order of the junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa dt. 30-9-2002.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of rs. 22,500/- on the basis of an unregistered mortgage deed dated 10-10-1996 alleged to be executed by the defendant in his favour. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that he never executed the mortgage deed by receiving the said amount. He undertook woodwork of the house of the plaintiff and after completion of the work the plaintiff did not settle the accounts and pay the amount to him. During the subsistence of the contract the plaintiff obtained his signature on blank stamped paper by misrepresentation and created a false and fabricated document.

( 3 ) DURING the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1. In the chief- examination the plaintiff intended to mark an unregistered mortgage deed dt. 10-10-1996 but the defendant raised objection for marking the same. The lower court therefore took up the matter for consideration whether the unregistered mortgage deed dated 10-10-1996 can be received in evidence for collateral purpose or whether it is liable to be rejected. The lower court after referring to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short the Act ), Rulings on this aspect and the contents of the document came to the conclusion that there is no personal covenant in the document to discharge the debt without reference to the mortgaged property. Accordingly, the lower court upheld the objection raised by the defendant and gave a finding that the unregistered mortgage deed dated 10-10-1996 cannot be received in evidence and marked for collateral purpose also.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order, preferred this revision petition contending that since the suit is for recovery of money, it can be marked in evidence for collateral purpose to show that there was a loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-defendant contended that since the mortgage deed is a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Act, it is not admissible in evidence, therefore, it cannot be marked as a document in support of plaintiffs claim.

( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the unregistered mortgage deed dated 10- 10-1996 can be received in evidence for the collateral purpose of proof of debt? point:

( 7 ) THE plaintiff is contending that the defendant borrowed Rs. 22,500. 00 by executing an unregistered simple mortgage deed in his favour mortgaging the land of an extent of Ac. 2-11 guntas situated in s. No. 115. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that since there is a personal undertaking given by the defendant in the said document to repay the debt, he is entitled to rely on the said document for proving the debt without going into the aspect of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to the property covered by the said document.

( 8 ) THE defendant while denying the borrowing of the amount and execution of the document contended that as the said document is an unregistered one, it is not admissible in evidence, therefore, it cannot be used even for collateral purpose. The defendant further contended that the contents of the document also do not indicate the personal undertaking of the defendant to repay the amount, therefore, it cannot be marked.

( 9 ) SECTION 17 (1) (c) of the Act reads as follows:17. Documents of which registration is compulsory: (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1863, or the Indian registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely: xxx (c) non-testamentary ins