1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 4-1-2018 in I.A.No.839 of 2017 in O.S.No.241 of 2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mandanapalle.

2. The suit O.S.No.241 of 2009 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property and to allot a share to the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have taken a plea by way of amendment that a sale deed dated 31-1-1987 which is executed in favour of defendant No.4 is not valid. The sale deed dated 31-1-1987 is an unregistered document executed on stamp paper worth Rs.5/-. The plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 13 Rule 3 read with Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, read with Section 151 CPC., for a direction that the said document cannot be accepted in evidence as it is not registered and is not adequately stamped. Respondents filed a counter in this application I.A.No.839 of 2017 stating that they are ready to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the document. They also admit that the unregistered sale deed is admissible for a collateral purpose of proving the possession of the suit schedule property by the defendants. This application came to be allowed and the impugned order came to be passed on 4-1-2018.

3. The Court below held that the unregistered sale deed can only be received for the collateral purpose of proving the possession of defendant No. 4 and for no other purpose. Questioning the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

4. This Court has heard Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the lower Court committed a serious error in receiving the document for a collateral purpose. According to him, the documents is admittedly unregistered, and that a patent error was committed by the trial Court in receiving the document. Learned counsel relies upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama, Laws (SC) 208 (3) 36 and Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, Laws (SC) 2015 (10) 30. He argues that the substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the document and that as the suit is filed for partition, the document should not have been received in evidence. It is his contention that in the counter filed, the respondents have agreed that the document suffers from registration and lack. of stamp duty. The contention of the learned counsel is that the respondents in the revision and the petitioners in the interlocutory application are using the said document to prove their title to the property. Therefore, the counsel contends that the lower Court committed a serious error in allowing the application.

6. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the document can be received, for establishing the collateral purpose of the possession. Learned counsel relies upon judgment reported in Annamadevulu Chandrarao v. M Veera Raghavulu 2015 (4) ALT 463 and argues that the document can be received for a collateral purpose.

7. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the Court below committed any error in passing the impugned order.

8. A reading of the order shows that the lower Court held that the document could be received for the collateral purpose of proving the possession of defendant No. 4, but riot for the title. In view of the fact that this is an issue that arises frequently, this Court heard both learned counsel at length.

9. A document which is not stamped as required under law cannot be received in any evidence for any purpose. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 makes this very clear. However, this is a curable defect and if the stamp duty and penalty is paid thereafter, the document becomes admissible. The proviso to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, deals with this. Thus, the defect of stamp duty or deficit stamp duty is a curable defect, but till the stamp duty