K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the second defendant.

2. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No. 54 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirukkalukundram, for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with his exclusive use, possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, the suit property is classified as Grama Natham and is in his exclusive possession and enjoyment for several years, wherein, he has put up a house and paying house tax, etc. It is his case that the defendants have no manner of right or title to the suit property.

4. The respondent/second defendant filed written statement contending that the first defendant is the owner of 11-3/4 cents in the suit property and sold away 0.06-3/4 cents by way of unregistered sale deed, dated 11.10.1989 to the second defendant and therefore, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land from the date of purchase. The first defendant, by filing separate written statement, also accepted the said position.

5. Pending suit, the second defendant filed I.A. No. 176 of 2005 seeking permission to mark the said unregistered sale deed, dated 11.10.1989 as secondary evidence for collateral purpose to prove his possession over the said property. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the application holding that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff by allowing the second defendant to mark the said document, since the admissibility of the said document can be considered at the time of trial. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the unregistered sale deed cannot be marked even for collateral purpose, since the second defendant claims title through the said document. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of this Court reported in Ruckmangathan vs. Ramalingam, 1997 (2) CTC 595 and Mokkamayan K. vs. P. Pushparani and Another, 2000 (3) LW 785.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/second defendant submitted that the disputed document is sought to be marked only to prove the factum of possession of the second defendant over the said property and not to declare his title and therefore, for such purpose, the unregistered document can be marked. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Bondar Singh and Others vs. Nihal Singh and Others, 2004 (1) LW 706.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

9. In this case, the plaintiff seeks the relief of declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is a Grama Natham and is in his exclusive possession and enjoyment for several years. Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove the contentions raised in his pleadings by way of material evidence.

10. On the other hand, the second defendant claims that he is in possession of 0.06-3/4 cents, having purchased the same from the first defendant by way of unregistered sale deed. Therefore, in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the second defendant wants to prove his possession by way of marking the said unregistered sale deed. It is needless to say that such purpose is only for collateral purpose in the said suit, as it is the categorical contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. For marking such unregistered document for collateral purpose, proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act paves the way for a party who seeks to mark the same and the same r