An unregistered and unstamped document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose, including collateral purposes, such as proving the nature and character of possession.

P.C. Jain, J.-The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order dated 18-7-96 passed by Shri Pratap Singh, civil Judge (J.D.), North Udaipur in civil Original Suit No. 142/90 by which the learned Civil Judge held that the document in question (Agreement to Sale dated 28-1-90) though not registered and properly stamped could be used by the defendant for the colateral purpose.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against the non-petitioner-defendant for permanent injunction in the trial Court. She averred that she has been in possession of residential plots Nos. 3 and 4 in Sundawas Area of the City of Udaipur in which boundary wall has been constructed around the above plots. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant was interfering in her peaceful possession and enjoyment. She, therefore, prayed that the defendant be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with her peaceful and lawful possession. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. Issues were framed. The evidence of the plaintiff has also been concluded. When the evidence of the defendant commenced, the defendant wanted to produce and execute the sale-deed dated 28-1-90 alleged to have been executed by Nandlal in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff objected to the admissibility of the above document in evidence on the ground that neither the document was written on proper stamp nor registered according to law. The document was, therefore, inadmissible in evidence and that it could not be used for any purpose including the collateral purpose.

3. Thetrial Court was, therefore, called upon to decide the question of admissibility of the above document. The contention of the defendant was that though the document was not registered under Section 49 of the Registration Act, the defendant was entitled to produce the document in question for the collateral purpose of proving his possession.

4. The plaintiff even challenged this limited use of unregistered document on the ground that under Section 35 of the Stamps Act, the document if not properly stamped cannot be used for any purpose. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the defendant to produce the above document in evidence for the collateral purpose to prove his possession. The plaintiff has assailed the above order by filing this revision petition.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above document was admittedly not written on proper stamps and it is also not registered. Hence, in the ordinary course, the above document is not admissible in evidence. He referred to Section 35 of the Stamp Act and submitted that in the above Section, the inadmissibility has been made for any purpose and the Allahabad High Court in Mst. Bibo vs. Rani Sahib Gokran, AIR 1937 All 101 has interpreted the words “for any purpose” as each and every purpose or a collateral purpose. This Court in Nihal Singh vs. Singhram, (1989) I Raj LR 384 has in similar facts has hold that a document which is not written on proper stamps and not registered cannot be used for any purpose including the collateral purpose.

7. Learned Counsel for, the non-petitioner has justified the order of the trial Court on the ground that under Section 49 of the Registration Act even if the document is registerable and has not been registered, cannot be allowed to be admitted in evidence but the above restriction does not exclude its reception in evidence for collateral purpose like possession etc. The learned trial Court has passed the order which is perfectly in accordance with the permissible limit of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Rajesh Vadhwa vs. Sushma, AIR 1989 Delhi 144 and Padma Vithoba vs. Mohd. Multani, AIR 1963 SC 70.

8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions made at the bar. I have also consid