The main legal point established in the judgment is that while an unregistered document cannot be admitted as evidence of any transaction affecting the property, it can be admitted for collateral purposes as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908.

1. The petitioners/defendants have preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition, as against the order, dated 08.12.2011, in I.A.No. 122 of 2011 in O.S.No. 305 of 1978, passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

2. The Learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, while passing the order in I.A.No. 122 of 2011 in O.S.No. 305 of 1978, dated 08.12.2011, has categorically inter alia observed that "on behalf of the plaintiff, Ex. No. 8 sought to be marked is a release deed and the said document is to be registered as per law and as per Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act 1908, it cannot be marked and also received in evidence as per the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners" and resultantly has come to the conclusion that through the settlement deed, dated 18.12.1962, no right has been relinquished in respect of immovable property and also that the said document is not marked for the purpose of primary reason and only for incidental / ancillary reason, the said document can be marked and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

3. Challenging the propriety on legality of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No. 122 of 2011 in O.S.No. 305 of 1978, dated 08.12.2011, the Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants urges before this Court that the trial Court has failed to take note that the pivotal question whether the document in question is admissible in evidence in view of the specific endorsement made by the Learned counsel during the trial in the first round to the effect that he is not relying the document.

4. It is the plea of the petitioners/defendants that the unregistered document filed by the Respondents/plaintiffs ought not to have been permitted to be marked in the main case.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants projects a legal plea that the document sought to be marked is an unregistered release deed which requires registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908 and unless the said document is so registered, it cannot be received in evidence ipso facto.

6. That apart, the Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants take a stand that a collateral transaction must be a transaction, not itself requires to be effected by a registered document viz., a transaction creating any right, title or interest in the immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and above.

7. Lastly, the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if a document is in admissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence by a Court of Law and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause could not be termed as using it as a collateral purpose.

8. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the order of the trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No. 122 of 2011 filed by the revision petitioners/defendants and further contended that the unregistered release deed can be marked for ancillary purpose and in this regard, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be construed to be a case of improprietary.

9. To lend support to the contention that " a collateral transaction must be a transaction which is not itself a transaction which requires to be effected by a registered document and a clause or term in unregistered document which does not constitute a collateral transaction cannot be admitted in evidence, the Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants cites the decision of this Court in Kaliya Perumal Vs. Dhandapani reported in 2010 (2) CTC 689, at page 690 and 691, wherein it is held as under:-

"It is not as if the party who marks an unstamped document can go scot free without payment of the stamp duty due under the instrument forever. As per Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, if the Appellate Court is of the opinion that such instrument should not have been admitted in evidence, without payment of duty and penalty, the