This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 18.07.2011, in O.S.No.108 of 2008, on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kakinada.

Respondent Nos.1 to 13 filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The petitioners are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the said suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.One of the pleas raised by the plaintiffs is that their ancestor, Vanimisetti Chakrapani Rao, has purchased the suit property through unregistered sale deed, dated 30.06.1960, and that since then, he and thereafter, they were in uninterrupted possession of the same and thereby perfected their title through adverse possession. It is their further plea that defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh and the Tahsildar, ought not to have granted assignment in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. During the course of evidence, the plaintiffs sought to introduce the unregistered sale deed, dated 30.06.1960, in evidence. This was opposed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that the said document, which is in the nature of sale deed, is unregistered and hence, the same is not admissible in evidence. The lower Court rejected the said objection by holding that under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), even an unregistered document affecting the immovable property can be received for collateral purpose. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4.

At the hearing, Sri P.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited (2008) 8 SCC 564), the judgment of this Court in Netrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayana (2006 (1) ALT 76), and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in V.H.Deshpande v. R.D.Deshpande (AIR 1942 Bombay 268).

Opposing the above submissions, Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bondar Singh & others v. Nihal Singh and others (2003) 4 SCC 161).

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The plaintiffs have claimed two main reliefs in the suit which appeared to be mutually contradictory, namely, declaration of title through adverse possession and for recovery of possession. They sought to rely upon the unregistered sale deed referred to above for the purpose of establishing their possession eventually to get their title declared through adverse possession. Under proviso to Section 49 of the Act, even an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose.The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the purpose of respondent Nos.1 to 13 to rely upon the unregistered sale deed is to establish their possession, which in turn will help them to get their title declared through adverse possession. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the purpose of placing reliance on the said document is for obtaining one of the main reliefs in the suit and hence, the same cannot be said to be for collateral purpose.In K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited (1 supra), the Supreme Court has deduced the principles as to what constitute “collateral purpose” as under:

“1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence for collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.

4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc., any right, ti