S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated August 29,1988 in e. A. No. 127 of 1982 ine. P. No. 7 of 1982 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Tuni. By the said order, the learned Munsif Magistrate declined to admit the document in evidence.

( 2 ) SRI M. V. Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the document records gift by way of pasupu Kumkuma which has been recognised as valid under the ceiling law and, therefore, that principle ought to have been extended by the executing court and the document ought to have been admitted in evidence. He further contends that, even though under Section 49 of the indian Registration Act the document is inadmissible in evidence yet for collateral purpose it can be admitted in evidence. Sri Balasubrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, contends that the document is inadmissible in evidence both under Section 49 of the Indian registration Act as well as under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, the executing court was right in not admitting it in evidence.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, it would be necessary t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document