Sanjay Yadav, J.

Correctness of the order-dated 7.12.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.86-A/2015 is being questioned by the petitioners-plaintiffs.

2. Vide impugned order, the trial Court while rejecting the application preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, directed that the instrument recording partition presented by the defendant shall not be admitted in evidence, but can be used for collateral purpose.

3. Though, it is contended on behalf of petitioner that in principle the trial Court is justified in holding that the instrument which was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act having not been registered, cannot be admitted in evidence; however, while directing that it be used for collateral purpose, the trial Court exceeded in expanding the aspect of collateral purpose by including within its fold the aspect of diversion of joint property by metes and bounds.

4. It is the following observations made by the trial Court which the petitioner takes exception of :

^foHkktu ds ckn esa vjftLV~hd`r nLrkost ij lkaikf'oZd iz;kstu vFkkZr~ gd dh i`Fkdrk] fofHkUu fgLlksa