( 1 ) THIS Revision is filed by the Plaintiff/petitioner against the order of the lower court, dismissing the suit filed on the basis of an unregistered mortgage deed dated 1-8-1985, as not maintainable.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit on the basis of two mortgage deeds, one registered and the other dated 1-8-1985 unregistered. The unregistered mortgage document was impounded, as it is not stamped, and sent to the Collector for collection of stamp duty and penalty. The Collector, treating the document as a bond, collected the stamp duty and penalty and returned the same along with his certificate to the Court. When this document was tendered in evidence, an objection was taken, that it is not admissible in evidence as it is an unregistered mortgage deed. When this order was questioned in a revision, viz. , CRP. No. 436 of 1990, this Court by an Order dated 23-3-1990, disposed of the said revision petition, remitting the matter to the trial court for framing an additional issue regarding the maintainability of the suit on the unregistered mortgage deed, with a direction to decide the said issue as a preliminary issue. The lower Court held that the document, being an unregistered mortgage deed, is not admissible in evidence. hence, this revision petition.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner has made two submissions (i) the unregistered mortgage deed is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the fact of borrowing the money and the personal liability of the defendant to discharge the same; and (ii) the order of the Collector, levying stamp duty and penalty on document in question, trating it as a bond, cannot be reviewed by the Civil Court.

( 4 ) THE teamed counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the recitals in the plaint themselves will disclose beyond any doubt that the document in question is a simple mortgage deed and, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence for want of registration. He further submits that, the correctness of the decision of the Collector with respect to the collection of stamp duty can be canvassed in a Civil Court.

( 5 ) THE point, therefore, mat falls for consideration in mis revision petition is - whether the document in question, is admissible in evidence?

( 6 ) IN support of the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he relies upon the decisions rendered in: pulaka Vetil Muthalakulangara Kunhu Moidin and others vs. Thiruthipalli Madhava Mamon and others, L. Yadava Reddy vs. Anasuyamma and others and Khantamoni Dassi vs. Biswa Nath.

( 7 ) THE points that fell for consideration in the Full Bench decision in Pulakavetil s case are- (i) is a registered mortgage which has not been attested or has only been attested by one witness, admissible as evidence of a personal covenant contained therein? and (ii) is an unregistered mortgage which has not been attested, or has only been attested by one witness, admissible as evidence of a personal covenant contained therein? The Full Bench answered both the points in the affirmative. It was held in that decision that a document which contains a personal covenant to pay a debt and which purports to mortgage immovable property assecurity for the debt is, if attested by two witnesses as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, admissible in evidence to prove the personal covenant, notwithstanding the fact that it is not registered. In L. Yadava Reddy s case (supra), the matter for consideration was, the effect of proviso to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act. In that context, it was held that "the proviso to Section 49 is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case, and as such an unregistered usufructuary mortgage, executed by the defendant, is admissible in evidence in this suit to prove the collateral transaction, viz. , the borrowal by the defendant by which he agreed to pay the amount borrowed. "in Khantamoni Dassi s case (3 supra), it was held that "even though a bond, w