1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.16-04-2019 in O.S.No.539 of 2012 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Petitioners herein are defendant Nos.4 to 6 in the said suit.

3. The said suit was filed by 1st respondent herein against petitioners and other respondents for declaration that 1st respondent is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and to direct petitioners and other respondents to deliver peaceful possession of the schedule property to him.

4. During the course of evidence, petitioners wanted to mark three unregistered sale deeds Exs.B-18 to B-20 for collateral purpose during the further chief-examination of D.W.1.

5. It was the objection of the 1st respondent that these three documents being unregistered sale deeds, they cannot be marked by petitioners and other respondents, and the Court should hold that they are inadmissible in evidence.

6. It is the contention of the petitioners that these sale deeds had been revalidated by the District Registrar under Section 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on 07-06-1997 and deficit stamp duty had also been collected thereon, and this makes them admissible in evidence. They contended that even if these documents are unregistered, they can be admitted for collateral purpose.

7. By order dt.16-04-2019, the Court below held that the suit having been filed by 1st respondent for the relief of declaration of title and possession, and since petitioners are contesting the claim of 1st respondent by setting up independent right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, these documents cannot be admitted in evidence since they are being relied upon by petitioners to prove their title over the suit schedule property. According to the Court below, proof of title cannot be treated as collateral purpose, and these documents cannot be marked as Exs.B-18 to B-20 in the further chief-examination of D.W.1 even if they had been revalidated subsequently by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty.

8. Challenging the same, petitioners have filed this Revision.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that though the suit is filed by 1st respondent for declaration of his title and recovery of possession, it is the defence of the petitioners that they have perfected title to the property through adverse possession from 1995 and to prove the nature of their possession, they wish to rely on these documents and that they are not relying on them to prove their title. They also pointed out that in the written statement they pleaded their uninterrupted possession from 15-12-1995 as owners and possessors and that the 1st respondent cannot challenge their title or possession after 17 years. Learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the decisions in Satish Chand Makhan and others Vs. Govardhan Das Byas and others (AIR 1984 SC 143), M/s.Sms Tea Estates P. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chandmari Tea Co. P. Ltd. (2011(5) ALD 149 (SC), Bondar Singh and others Vs. Nihal Singh and others (2003) 4 SCC 161), K. Ramamoorthi Vs. C. Surenderanatha Reddy (2012 (6) ALD 163) in support his submissions.

10. Learned counsel 1st respondent refuted the said contentions and supported the order passed by the Court below. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd (2008(6) ALD 92 (SC), Golla Dharmanna Vs. Sakari Poshetty and others (2013(5) ALD 490), and Dangu @ Kadamenda Yellaiah (Died) per LRs., and others Vs. Ch. Sridhar Reddy and another (2013(1) ALT 461) to contend that an unregistered sale deed cannot be received in evidence in a suit for declaration of property even for collateral purpose under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

11. I have noted the submission of both sides.

12. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that three sale deeds are unregistered documents and though they were also insuffic