The main legal point established was that an unregistered sale deed can be admitted as evidence for collateral purpose to establish the nature of possession of the property concerned, based on the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 16.6.2011 made in I.A.No.124 of 2011 in O.S.No.146 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. to mark an unregistered sale deed, dated 27.7.1994 on his side.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The petitioner filed the said suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The abovesaid I.A. was filed by the petitioner by contending that he had purchased the suit property under an unregistered sale deed, dated 27.7.1994 from the first defendant by paying the entire sale amount, who in turn handed over the possession of the suit property to the petitioner and for the purpose of proving his possession, the said document is to be marked only for such collateral purpose. The said application was resisted by the respondents mainly by contending that such unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. The Court below rejected the said application only on the reason that the said document was not registered.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said document was sought to be marked only for collateral purpose to prove the possession of the plaintiff, and therefore, there is no legal bar in marking the said document. She further contended that one of the defendants subsequently filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur in respect of the very same property against the petitioner herein, seeking for declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.4.2014 by specifically giving a finding that the petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In support of her submissions, learned counsel relied on the following decisions:

(i) 2004 (1) LW 706 (SC) (Bondar Singh and others Vs. Nihal Singh and others);

(ii) 2010 (3) MWN (Civil) 556 (SC) (S.Kaladevi Vs. V.R.Somasundaram) and

(iii) 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 534 (Madras High Court) (Durai @ Subrayan Vs. Anandan).

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per Section 49(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, the document under dispute cannot be received as evidence, as the same was not registered. He further submitted that proviso to Section 49 is applicable only in respect of a suit for specific performance filed under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and not in respect of the present suit filed for bare injunction. According to the learned counsel, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the sale has not taken place, since the balance consideration has to be paid even according to the said document sought to be marked. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on the following decisions of this Court:

(i) 2006 (2) LW 437 (Pyarijan Vs. Puttappa and another) and

(ii) 2007 (3) CTC 633 (Nagammal Vs. Valliammal).

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the unregistered sale deed, dated 27.7.1994 can be permitted to be marked as a documentary evidence on the side of plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction.

7. The Court below rejected the said application only on the reason that the said document was not registered. In order to answer the issue on hand, it is better to refer to the relevant provision, namely Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as follows:

"Section 49: Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered: No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Pr