The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.179 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. The said suit is filed against the respondents herein/defendants seeking a decree for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit claim. During his evidence, the plaintiff sought to mark the original sale deed dated 11.04.1973 under which he claims to have purchased the suit property. The defendants raised an objection as to the admissibility of the said sale deed on the ground that it is an unregistered document. The Court below by order dated 22.6.2012 held that the unregistered sale deed dated 11.4.1973 is inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

Admittedly the sale deed dated 11.4.1973 under which the suit schedule property is stated to have been purchased by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.500/- is an unregistered document. As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, the document transferring any right, title or interest of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards in an immovable property shall be registered. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 further provides that no document which required registration under Section 17 shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered.

In the light of the statutory requirements, the defendant raised an objection as to the admissibility of the sale deed dated 11.4.1973 which was sought to be marked in evidence by the plaintiff and the said objection was upheld by the Court below by the order under Revision.

Placing reliance upon DOMA GOVINDA RAJU AND ANOTHER v. VANIMISETTI PAPA RAO (2012 (5) ALD 257), the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that notwithstanding the fact that the document in question is unregistered, the same could have been received in evidence for collateral purpose.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon BONDAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS (2003 AIR(SC) 1905), PARITI SURYAKANTHAMMA v. SARIPALLI SRINIVASA RAO (2010 (2) ALT 648)and DANGU @ KADAMENDA YELLAIAH (DIED) PER LRs. v. CH. SRIDHAR REDDY (2013 (1) ALT 461)in support of his submission that an unregistered sale deed cannot be received in evidence in a suit for declaration of title to property even for collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

What is collateral purpose has been explained by the Apex Court as well as this Court in various decisions. As per the well-settled principle of law, any purpose other than the one which relates to establishment of title to the property can be treated as collateral.

In the present case, the specific case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. He claims title to the said property under a sale deed, dated 11.04.1973 executed by the defendants 3 & 4 along with their father and also the son of the 3rd defendant in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and thereafter under a registered gift settlement deed, dated 26.8.2004 executed by the plaintiff’s mother and father in favour of the plaintiff, he acquired absolute title and possession over the said property. Alleging that the defendants 3 & 4 executed a sham and nominal sale deed dated 28.3.2007 in favour of the defendants 1 & 2 in respect of the very same property covered by the sale deed dated 11.4.1973, he filed the suit for declaration of his title.

Thus it is clear that the plaintiff intends to rely upon the document in question to prove his title to the suit schedule property, but not for any other purpose. Therefore, the contention that the document can be look