1. The order disposing of the C. R. P. was delivered on 4th July, 1988. There after on the representation of the counsel representing the parties, who brought to my notice two Full Bench rulings, one of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hazrami Gangaram v. Kamlabai (A.I.R.1968 A.P. 213 (FB) ) and the other of the Madras High Court, Chief Cont, Rev. Authority v. Canara I. & B. Syndicate (A. I. R.1969 Mad. 1(FB) both distinguishing the earlier Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in C. E. Co. v. C. C. Rev. Authority (A.I.R.1953 Mad. 764 (FB)), cited in the order dated 4th July, the revision was posted again for "to be spoken to" and the revision was thereupon heard again and disposed of by the following order modifying the order delivered on 4th July, 1988.

2. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money is the revision petitioner.

3. The suit is based on an agreement executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.3/-. According to the defendant the agreement in fact is a 'mortgage deed'. Since it was not registered, the respondent contended that it was not admissible in evidence.

4. The learned Munsiff after considering the various aspects of the case held that the document is a 'm