D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This second appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 9 of 2005 by the VI Additional District Judge, Narsapur confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1999 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur.

2. The appeal was taken up for hearing on the question of admission.

3. This Court has heard Sri S.V. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.S.V.V.S.V. Prasad for the appellant and Sri P. Durga Prasad and Sri S.V.R. Subrahmanyam, Advocates for the contesting respondents.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants traced the history of the case and brought out the important facts. According to the learned senior counsel, the suit is filed for recovery of property that has been encroached by the defendants. The prayer in the suit is for recovery of possession of two bits of vacant site measuring 147 square yards and 25 square yards respectively and for a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the property after they are put into possession. Learned counsel points out that the plaintiffs have title which can be traced to the documents which are marked as Exs. A-1, A-2, A-3 and Ex. A-22. Counsel argued that after verifying the land with the documents ending with Ex. A-22, shortage of site was noticed on the ground of necessity of filing of the suit. Counsel also points out that there is no documentary evidence to the contra filed by the defendants. Therefore, he questions the findings of the Courts below in ignoring the title deeds of the plaintiff/appellants. Learned senior counsel also fairly conceded that the crux of the issue is about Ex. A-2 sale deed, which is an unregistered sale deed dated 1-5-1944. Both the Courts below, in the opinion of the learned senior counsel, committed an error in ignoring the document. It is his contention that even an un-registered document can be looked into for a collateral purpose. The learned senior counsel also argued on the basis of Sk. Bhikan v. Mehamoodabee 2017 (5) ALT 1 (SC) : (2017) 5 SCC 127, M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs. v. KM Veeraje Urs (D) by L.Rs. 2013 (5) ALT 40 (SC) : (2013) 7 SCC 490 and Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, that the question of interpretation or the construction of a document of title is also a question of law. Therefore, learned senior counsel contends that both the lower Courts committed an error by not considering the said document. It is his contention that the flow of title will be established if Exs. A-1, A-2 and A-3 are read in conjunction with Ex. A-22 and by failing to consider the contents of Ex. B-2, the lower Courts committed an error. He, therefore, submits that the substantial questions of law which are raised along with the grounds of the appeal are a matter that requires a decision. He therefore, prays that the appeal should be admitted.

5. In reply thereto, Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the decisions of both the Courts below are valid and correct. He submits that as the title is not proved to these two bits of land which are the subject matter of the Court, the Courts below rightly negative the claim. He also submits that as the suit is filed for recovery of possession, the contents of Ex. A-22 cannot be considered at all on the question of possession also since it is not a collateral purpose as submitted. The main relief in the suit is for recovery of possession and therefore, learned counsel submits that considering the contents of Ex. A-2 will not be a "collateral purpose". Learned counsel also points out that the case does not involve the question of interpretation or the construction of a document, but turns around receiving the document in evidence as it is un-registered. He, therefore, submits that the questions of law which are proposed are not at all questions of law and that there is absolutely