1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Mr. Xavier waives notice for Mun Corporation. As short question is involved, the appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith by consent.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court Mumbai dated 22.9.2005 in L.C Suit No. 532 of 2004. The appellant instituted the suit before the lower court for declaration and injunction against the defendants to forebear from demolishing the suit premises admeasuring 5 ft x 4 ft constructed of GI sheet wall and AC sheet roof bearing S.No.44, Hissa No.9B, CTS No. 737(pt) of village Kandivli, Taluka Borivli, Mumbai, situated at Gandhi Nagar Near Power House, Durga Mandir Road, Kandivli West, Mumbai. The substantive relief claimed by the appellant plaintiff read thus: "a) That this Hon‘ble court be pleased to declare that the threat given by the defendants to demolish the suit premises admeasuring 5’ x 4’ sq ft constructed of GI sheet wall and AC sheet roof bearing S.No.44, Hissa No.9B CTS no.737 (pt) of Village Kandivli, Taluka Borivli Mumbai Suburban District situated at Gandhi Nagar Near Power House, Durga Mandir Road, Kandivli (West) Mumbai 400067 as more particularly shown in Exhibit A annexed hereto without following due process of law is illegal and unlawful. b) That the defendants their agents, servants, officers, employees be permanently restrained by an order and injunctions of this Hon‘ble court from demolishing the suit premises/ admeasuring 5’ x 4’ sq ft constructed of GI sheet wall and AC sheet roof bearing S.No.44, Hissa No.9B CST no.737 (pt) of Village Kandivli, Taluka Borivli Mumbai Suburban District situated at Gandhi Nagar Near Power House, Durga Mandir Road, Kandivli (West) Mumbai 400067 without following due process of law c) that interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (b) above be granted. d) costs of this suit be provided for e) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted".

3. Essentially, the relief claimed in the suit was to issue direction to the corporation to proceed against the suit structure after following the due process of law. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit structure was constructed by one Khan Sabuddin Nazirkhan from whom the appellant had purchased it under an agreement of sale dated 3.l2.l99l. Indeed, the agreement of sale is not a registered document as has been noted by the trial court. Nevertheless, such document can be used in evidence for collateral purpose such as to buttress the relief claimed. To establish the fact that the suit structure is existing since long, the appellant relied upon the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 2/2/l996 which mentions that the plaintiff was allegedly using the land for unauthorized non agricultural purpose. The appellant also relied upon the agricultural tax receipt dated 2.5.l996 and the licence granted by the corporation under the Shops and Establishments Act. It is not necessary to refer to other circumstances pressed into service by the appellant to assert that the suit structure is existing since long.

4. In my opinion, these documents and the evidence produced by the appellant was sufficient to infer that some structure did exist on the disputed land on the date of the institution of the suit. Such a finding was inevitable as the respondent-defendants did not file any written statement. If this is the finding to be reached, the court below has committed manifest error in dismissing the suit which was essentially for direction against the Authorities to take action against such a suit structure by following due process of law.

5. The trial court however, adopted specious reasoning that the agreement of sale relied by the appellant was not a registered document. This opinion overlooks that even such document can be relied in evidence for collateral purpose, though not for establishing title. The trial court has then observed that the order of