( 1 ) THE 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 164 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, mahabubnagar is the revision petitioner. He impugnes the incidental order passed by the said Court in O. S. No. 164 of 1993 dated 4-4-2002. Be it noted that while passing the said order, the learned trial Judge held that the unregistered gift deed dated 17-5-1988 produced by the petitioner during trial is not admissible in evidence.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein who is defendant No. 2 filed a written statement alleging that the land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 6. 00 comprised in Survey Nos. 164 and 167 was gifted to him by the plaintiff and that he has been in possession of the said land since then. The matter went for trial. At that time, the petitioner on his own volition submitted the document before the Revenue Divisional officer (Registrar) and the same was impounded for not paying proper stamp duty. Be that as it may, the plaintiff examined herself as P. W. 1 and marked exs. A-1 to A-4. The petitioner herein examined himself as D. W. 1 and also examined D. W. 2 and D. W. 3. After that, he filed an application to recall himself for the purpose of marking the document dated 17-5-1988 under which the property allegedly in his possession was gifted to him. The opposite party objected for admitting the document in evidence as it was unregistered. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the document in question cannot be accepted in evidence even for collateral purposes as the suit is not for injunction where the only relevant issue would be as to who is in possession of the property and accordingly rejected the document.

( 3 ) SRI B. Narasimha Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even without allowing D. W. 1 to come into the box and explain as to what is the collateral purpose, it is improper for the trial Court to assume that the document cannot be marked for collateral purposes. He also submits that the document sought to be marked though is an unregistered gift deed, it comes within the scope of the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 ( the act for brevity) and therefore it is admissible in evidence.

( 4 ) SRI K. Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that D. W. 1 admitted in his evidence that he is not in possession of the property and that when the document in question is dealing in immovable property, it has to be necessarily either of the two documents mentioned in the proviso to Section 49 of the Act and that it cannot be marked for any collateral purpose. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Amara Parvathi v. Peruru Chanti and the judgment rendered by me in Dadi Reddy Sivanarayana Reddy v. Kasi Reddy Chinnamma.

( 5 ) THE document dated 17-5-1988 is produced before me. The same is written on rs. 5/- non-judicial stamp paper. The endorsement of the Revenue Divisional officer, Mahabubnagar, dated 31-12-2001, a copy of which was also produced before me reads as under: as per the recitals of the document it is a gift deed dt. 5-7-1985, which falls under Section 29-I. S. Act, the same duty as a conveyance (No. 20) which is required to be stamped for Rs. 270. 00 which is fixed as stamp duty Rs. 270. 00 together with (4) four times penalty of rs. 1080/- totaling to Rs. 1350. 00. The petitioner has remitted the same amount in the Government Treasury vide Sub-Treasury Office, mahabubnagar Challan bearing no. 3270 (Rs. 270) and 3280 (Rs. 1080) dt. 29-12-2001.) hence this document is hereby validated.

( 6 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioner herein accepted the same as gift deed which certainly requires registration under section 17 (l) (a) of the Act, can it fall within the scope of proviso to Section 49 of the said act?

( 7 ) IT is necessary to refer to Section 49 which reads as under: effect of non registration of documents req