1. One Erappa had four sons namely Rangappa, Mudlappa, Dasappa and Thimmanna.

2. Gangamma - petitioner herein is the daughter of Thimmanna, the youngest son of Erappa. She filed a suit seeking for a declaration that she had become the owner of 'A' schedule property by virtue of a registered Will dated 02.11.1992 executed by her father Thimmanna and she also sought for a consequential decree of injunction.

3. The said suit was filed against the children of her paternal uncle and her siblings.

4. Gangamma, during the course of her deposition, sought to produce a document which was titled as a 'Release Deed'. Under the said Release Deed, her sisters were stated to have relinquished their share in favour of the petitioner by receiving a sum of Rs.7,500/- each.

5. In the said Release Deed, there was also a recital that their father - Thimmanna had executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner and thereby, the petitioner had become the owner of the property by virtue of the bequest made in her favour. The said Release Deed was not registered and was printed on a stamp paper of Rs.70/-.

6. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, refused to receive the said document in evidence on the ground that it was a compulsorily registrable document and that the same had been insufficiently stamped.

7. It is this order which is assailed in this writ petition contending that even if the Release Deed is required to be registered, it could still be received in evidence for the collateral purpose of establishing that the petitioner's father had executed a Will in her favour.

8. It is the contention of Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said document, petitioner's sisters i.e., defendants 8 to 11 had admitted that their father had executed a Will dated 02.11.1992, whereby he had bequeathed his 1/4th share to the petitioner and since this admission had been recorded in writing, it had become imperative for the said document to be received in evidence as proof of the said fact.

9. The respondents, though served, have chosen to remain absent before this Court.

10. The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is :
Whether an unregistered Release Deed can be received in evidence for the collateral purpose of considering an admission stated to have been made by the defendants pertaining to the execution of a Will in favour of the petitioner?

11. It is trite law that any document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest, in respect of an immovable property having a value of more than one hundred rupees is compulsorily required to be registered as envisaged under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

12. Part X of the Act provides for provisions which relate to the effects of registration and non-registration.

13. Section 47 of the Act indicates the time from which a registered document operates.

14. Section 48 of the Act indicates as to when a registered document relating to property would take effect against oral agreements.

15. Section 49 of the Act states the effect of non- registration of documents which are required to be registered.

16. Section 49 of the Act which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced below:
"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 Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall -
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power,
unless it has been registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance un