In a suit for injunction, an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose including the collateral purpose for proving the nature and character of the possession.

1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2006 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur City (North), Udaipur has been upheld.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus:- the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant pertaining to the plots situated at Sunderva, Glass Factory Area, Udaipur; it was, inter alia, claimed that the plaintiff purchase the plots vide sale deed dated 11.08.1981 and got the same sub-divided on 18.08.1981 and since then the plots were in her possession and ownership; it was alleged that though defendant has nothing to do with the said plots, he was seeking to trespass on the said plots and as plaintiff is a lady, she cant fight with the defendant; attempt in this regard was made on 01.05.1990, which was thwart; it is not possible for the plaintiff to keep a constant vigil at the suit plots and, therefore, injunction was sought against the defendant seeking restraint against trespassing on the plots in question and dispossessing the plaintiff.

3. A written statement was filed by the appellant-defendant, inter alia, contending that the plot No.4 does not belong to the plaintiff as she has sold the same and has given possession to the defendant; defendant is in possession; there is no dispute regarding plot No.3 as there is a separate boundary wall regarding plot No.3 and for plot No.4 defendant has constructed the boundary wall, on which there is a gate and his name plate; plaintiff is not in possession of the said plot; the suit land is agricultural and, therefore, the civil court does not have jurisdiction to hear the suit. Rest of the allegations made in the plaint regarding attempted trespass, were denied.

4. The trial court framed as many as three issues and decided issue relating to jurisdiction against the defendant as preliminary issue on 24.03.1995 and held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant, four witnesses were examined.

5. After hearing the parties and analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court noticed that the alleged agreement/sale deed dated 28.01.1990, which was unstamped and unregistered, was held by the trial court that the same could not be used for proving the title but the defendant was entitled to produce the document for collateral purpose for proving his possession, however, the said order passed by the trial court was reversed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.632/1996 decided on 25.09.1996, whereby, the high court set aside the order of the trial court and held that the document in question cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose including the collateral purpose for proving the nature and character of the possession and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and, consequently, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendant-appellant from interfering in her possession.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal; the appellate court thoroughly scrutinised the evidence led by the parties and on noticing the statement of defendant Tulsiram, wherein he stated that he asserts his possession on the plot on the basis of the document executed by Nandlal and Jamnabai, which document had already been held to be inadmissible even for collateral purposes, therefore, on defendants own evidence his possession on the suit plot was not proved. The appellate court also came to the conclusion that even from the statements of witnesses, the possession of plaintiff was amply proved. The appellant tried to reagitate the issue pertaining to admissibility of the document relied on by him for possession before the trial court, however, the appellate court negated the said attempt o