An unregistered document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose, such as to prove the nature of a person's possession.

( 1 ) THESE arc three appeals against the order of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge Delhi dated June 5, 1968. This judgment will govern them all.

( 2 ) THE facts arc these. The plaintiffs who are now the respondents in the appeal brought three suits for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of a part of Khasra No. 645/581 situated in Chandrawal Jaidid near Delhi. It was alleged that the defendants who arc the appellants now had constructed mud huts on the part of the khasra belonging to the plaintiffs. It was further alleged that the possession of the defendants commenced in 1949 and they agreed to pay rent.

( 3 ) IN all the three suits the plaintiffs are the same The defendants are different persons. Mangal Singh alias Mangtu is the defendant in one suit. Nanua and Naurang are the defendants in the second suit. Harphool and Jaidev arc the defendants in the third suit.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs alleged that Mangal Singh had agreed to Pay Rs. 2. 00 as rent. Similarly Harphool and Jaidcv had agreed to pay Rs. 2. 00 pecr month, they said. Nanua and Naurang had agreed to pay Rs. 3. 00 per month as rent accordingly to the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs case was that the defendants had neither paid rent nor had they vacated the premises inspite of service of notice on them A decree for ejectment from the site on which the mud huts had been constructed and decree for rent and damages were claimed. The defendants resisted the suits. They raised several defences. They said that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue them in ejectment as permission of the Competent Authority under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 had not been obtained. On merits the defendants claimed themselves to be the owners of the huts in dispute. They denied their liability to pay rent or damages.

( 6 ) THE trial court by order dated December 5, 1967. granted the plaintiffs a decree for rent. The plaintiff s claim for ejectment was dismissed.

( 7 ) THE defendants appealed to the Senior Sub Judge. The Additional Senior Sub Judge set aside the decree for rent granted by the trial court but instead passed a decree for compensation for use and occupation for the same amount which was decreed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs. On ejectment there was no appeal and that part of controversy at least no longer survives.

( 8 ) THE central point in these cases is about the admissibility of a panchayat-nama dated July 5, 1960 in evidence. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had executed the document dated July 5, 1960 in their favour admitting them, the plaintiffs, as the owners of the land. On the basis of the said document the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants possession was permissive and that they were entitled to rent or damages.

( 9 ) THE courts below found that there was a panchayat-nama dated July 5, 1960. The defendants had executed the said document. This document was admissible for the purpose of showing the nature of possession of the defendants. The defendants were not held to be the owners of the property. Their claim to adverse possession was held not proved. The plaintiffs claim for rent was decreed by the trial court. The first appellate court took the view that a decree for rent could not be passed. It passed a decree for the same amount on account of compensation for use and occupation. The defendants now appear to this court.

( 10 ) THE only question which has been argued in these appeals is the question regarding the admissibility of the panchayat-nama dated July 5,1960 (P1 ).

( 11 ) THE counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that this document is inadmissible in evidence under section 17 of the Registration Act. It cannot be read in evidence even for a collateral purpose under section 49. This is his main submission. The counsel for the plaintiffs respondents however contends that though the document is inadmissible f