Unregistered document admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose.

.1. The first appellant filed the suit in O.S.No. 687 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani, for declaration and for permanent injunction against one Ghouse Mohideen Sahib, who died pending the suit whose legal representatives are appellants 2 to 5 in S.A.No.209 of 1988, and against Bhavani Municipality.

2. According to the 1st appellant, the suit property was owned by his father and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 25 years and thereafter he became entitled to the same. The 1st defendant-municipality had recognised the 1st appellant/plaintiff as the owner of the suit property and assessed property tax in his name and so the said Ghouse Mohideen Sahib 2nd defendant has no right or title or interest in the suit property, but he attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

3. The said Ghouse Mohideen along with one P.K. Babu filed the suit in O.S.No. 301 of 1983 on the same Court for declaration, delivery of possession and fur mesne profits with respect to the same property. According to them they are the brothers, and the suit property is their ancestral property. Their father had mortgaged the same on 5. 1947 to one Palanisami Chettiar and got in discharged on 26. 1959. Thereafter the said Ghouse Mohideen leased out the suit property to Chinna Pillai, the father of Ayyavoo on monthly rent and since they had committed default and wilfully claiming title to the suit property, and so they have filed the said suit for declaration and recovery of possession. Pending the disposal of the said suit, P.K. Babu died and so his legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs 3 to 6.

4. The trial Court tried both the suits jointly and dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 687 of 1982 and decreed the suit in O.S.No. 301 of 1983. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the present appellants filed the Appeals in A.S.Nos. 34 and 44 of 1986 on the file of the District Court Erode and they were subsequently transferred to Sub-Court, Erode and re-numbered as A.S.Nos. 36 and 45 of 1986. The lower appellate Court after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeals with costs. Still aggrieved, the appellants have filed the above second appeals.

.5. The only argument that has been advanced before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the respondents has come forward with the plea that the appellants are the lessees and thereby they have prayed for recovery of possession, and the Courts below have erroneously relied on the said documents Exs. B3 to B5, which are unregistered lease deeds and granted the decree in favour of the respondents for possession, which is contrary to the decision of this Court in Muruga Mudaliar v. Subba Reddiar. 1950 (II) M.L.J. 818 and in Arumughachamy Nadar v. V. Deivanaiammal, 1998 (I) CTC., 286. According to the learned counsel, the respondents are claiming possession from the appellants only on the basis of the said documents which are unregistered and so the Courts below are not correct in relying on the said documents for collateral purpose to decide about the character of possession especially when the appellants are denying such relationship.

6. The Courts below has relied on Exs. B1 and B2, the letter sent by the Tahsildar in the year 1919 and 1922 to come to the conclusion that the suit property belongs to the respondents. To sustain the claim of the respondents that the appellants are in possession as tenant, the Courts below have relied on Exs. B3 to B5 and has come to the conclusion that the appellants are in possession only as tenants under the respondents and so the respondents are entitled for declaration and possession as prayed for. Apart from these documents, there is no other document available for the respondents to establish their right. Since the Courts below have relied on those documents to come to the conclusion tha