Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—By this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Defendant/revision Petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 10.4.2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C., Chickballapur, in O.S. No. 283 of 1990.

2. In the course of trial, it appears that the learned Counsel for the Defendant raised the objection as to the admissibility of the unregistered document namely palupatti i.e., some document alleged to be palupatti. The objection of the Defendant was that the palupatti was not registered and so it cannot be marked in evidence of the Plaintiff as it is inadmissible to prove title of any coparcener to any of the property. The Court below rejected the objection taking the view that even if the document may be taken to be an unregistered partition deed and it is not registered, but even an unregistered document may be used for collateral purposes. Whether that document itself is the partition-deed or not, that question has to be decided at the time of hearing of the suit and unless that question is decided, the question whether the document requires to be registered or not could not be decided. But,