An unregistered document can be used for a collateral purpose, such as to test the veracity of the evidence of a witness, even though it cannot be used to create or transfer title to property.

M. Sundararaju, the plaintiff, is the appellant herein. S. Periasami, the defendant, is the respondent herein.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 1372 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Trichirapalli for a permanent injunction, restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. According to the appellant, the suit properties belonged to his father and under a registered Partition Deed dated 15.6.1983, effected by his father, items 1 and 2 of the suit properties were allotted to him and under a registered settlement deed dated 29.6.1983, Item No. 3 of the suit property was bequeathed by his father in his favour and as such, the respondent-defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit properties and since the respondent/defendant attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, he filed a suit, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The respondent/defendant contested the suit, inter alia , stating that the respondent and the father of the plaintiff are the brothers, that under a Family Arrangement Deed dated 10.6.1968, entered into between them, 6- cents in the first items of the suit properties and the second and third items of the suit properties were allotted to the share of the respondent, that certain other properties were allotted to the father of the plaintiff and that pursuant to the said Family Arrangement, the respondent has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties and that he had perfected his title by adverse possession and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit properties, at any point of time.

5. On the above said pleadings, various issues were framed by the trial Court and the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A17. On the side of the defendants, the defendant examined himself as D.W.I and two other persons as D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 and Exs. Bl to B8 were marked.

6. On consideration of the materials, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for.

7. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S. No. 34 of 1986, before the II Additional Judge, Trichirapalli. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an I.A. No. 1043 of 1986 for reception of additional document and sought to mark a certified copy of ‘Thandal Extract’ in respect of the items of the suit property for Faslis 1384 to 1391. The said petition was allowed and the document was marked as Ex. B9. Thereafter, the lower Appellate Court, after hearing the parties and on considering the records, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

8. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court:—

“1. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in placing reliance on the evidence adduced by the respondent/defendant in regard to the purchase of the suit properties in the name of the appellants father when such a plea has not been raised in the pleadings? And

2. Whether the lower Appellate Court was right at its construction of Ex. B7”.

9. In elaboration of the above questions of law, Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would vehemently contend that the well-considered judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, have been reversed by the lower Appellate Court, without giving valid reasons.

10. It is contended that the lower Appellate Court, having disbelieved the case of the defendant, that the suit properties were purchased by the father of the plaintiff out of the fund, including the income earned by the defendant, committed a grave illegality in holding that the defendant would be entitled to the possession of the property, without considering the various documents produced by the plaintiff, which would establish his title and posse