( 1 ) THIS reference has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court, referring the following question :"whether the document in question is admissible in evidence, for collateral purpose in the facts and circumstances of the case. "in a suit for permanent injunction, a document was pressed into service by the defendant, which was a Deed of Lease. An objection was taken to its admissibility on the ground that it was not registered. The contention was that in terms of Section 49 (c) of the Registration Act, 1908, the document though unregistered, could be used for collateral purpose. Since one of the parties had denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, the other party had justified his possession on the ground that he was a tenant and as such was in possession. Therefore the Court had to decide whether such a document could be taken into consideration for the purpose of establishing the possession. The learned Single Judge took note of the following three judgments: (1) Hussain Begum and others v. Madu ranga Rao and others, 2000 (2) ALD 30 = 2000 (1) ALT 568. (2) Relangi Nageswara Rao and another v. Tatha Chiranjeeva Rao, 2000 (5) ald 577 = 2000 (5) ALT 561. (3) Satish Chandmakhan v. Govardhan das Byas, AIR 1984 SC 143. After noting these decisions, the learned single Judge felt that such questions were cropping up off and on, therefore it was better if the matter was decided by a Division bench.

( 2 ) BEFORE going to the arguments and the judgments which have been cited at the bar, it will be profitable to reproduce section 49 (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. "49. Effect of non-registfntion of documents required to be registered: (a ). . . . . (b ). . . . . . . (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: [provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a coatract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction nor required to be effected by registered instrument. ]"

( 3 ) NOW, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that Section 49 (c) empowers the Courts to rely on unregistered documents for collateral purpose and the nature of the possession of the petitioner would be a collateral purpose in the suit, whereas the learned Counsel for the other side submits that in a suit for injunction, the question of possession is a principal question and not a collateral question. In a lease, it is submitted What is transfer, is possession alone and if it is held to be a collateral purpose, then there won t be any principal purpose. It is submitted that if a sale deed is unregistered, possession may be collateral purpose because in a sale, the total interest in the property is transferred whereas lease by definition, transfers only the possession. Therefore in a lease deed, the possession would be the principal purpose and not collateral purpose. This question has cropped up on many occasions before this Court as well as supreme Court. Let us have a look at the judgments of this Court and the Supreme court, which have also been noted by the learned Single Judge. (1) Hussain Begum and others:v. Madu ranga Rao and others, 2000 (2) ALD 30 = 2000 (1) ALT 568. This also pertain to a lease and in Para 15, this court held:"the only document upon which reliance has been placed very much by the plaintiffs is Ex. B-1. Ex. B-1 is an unregistered lease said to have been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and said to have been attested by the second defendant. Second defendant is not obviously a party thereto. Now it is the plea of the plaintiffs further that after