The respondents/plaintiffs have laid the suit, in O.S.No.226 of 2015, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, for recovery of possession against the revision petitioners/defendants. The said suit is being resisted by the revision petitioners/defendants by filing a written statement. It is found that in the said suit, the revision petitioners have preferred an application in I.A.No.16 of 2017 seeking for the admission of the unregistered lease deed, dated 01.02.2002, in evidence on the footing that the lease deed had been executed in respect of the suit property between the first petitioner and one Nagarajan fixing the lease period as fifteen years from 01.02.2002 to 31.01.2017 and inasmuch as the said document is unregistered and not properly stamped, according to the revision petitioners, they are ready to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty and further, according to them, inasmuch as the unregistered document could be relied on for collateral purpose, to prove the character of possession, according to them, they have preferred the said application for the relief above mentioned.

2. The above said application has been resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs stating that no doubt the unregistered document can be marked for the collateral purpose only if the collateral transaction is the one which do not require it to be done by a registered document as per law and if the so- called collateral transaction is the one, which could be done only by way of the registered document as per law, then the alleged unregistered document projected by the revision petitioners cannot be marked for any purpose and inasmuch as the revision petitioners seek to mark the above said lease deed, which requires to be compulsorily registered as per law and for the purpose of establishing their tenancy in respect of the suit property and which fact or transaction could be done only by way of the registered document considering the terms of the lease deed and in such view of the matter, according to the respondents/plaintiffs, the transaction for the purpose of which the revision petitioners seek to mark the above said document is not a collateral transaction and hence, the document should not be received in evidence and it is liable to be dismissed.

3. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, after referring to the various decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts, concluded that the document sought to be marked by the revision petitioners is a lease deed and in and by which, the revision petitioners seek to establish their tenancy in respect of the suit property under one Nagarajan and inasmuch as the said collateral transaction as put forth by the revision petitioners by itself required to be effected only by a registered document as per law and therefore, held that the document cannot be marked for the collateral purpose as sought for by the revision petitioners and hence, dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.

4. The revision petitioners/defendants seek to mark the unregistered lease deed said to have been executed between the first revision petitioner and one Nagarajan on 01.02.2002. Admittedly, the said document is not registered as per law. It could, therefore, be seen that the said document cannot be received in evidence. However, relying upon the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the revision petitioners had moved the Court by way of an application to receive the document in evidence for the purpose of establishing a collateral transaction/purpose i.e., to prove the character of possession of the suit property by them and hence, the document should be received in evidence. Resisting the above said application, the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the collateral purpose/transaction for the purpose of which, the revision petitioners had pressed the above said document to