1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.217 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.217 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar against respondent Nos.1 to 10 for declaration and recovery of the suit schedule property. After closure of the petitioners/plaintiffs’ side evidence, the respondents herein have filed I.A.No.365 of 2017 to receive the documents. The trial Court allowed the said petition. The petitioners did not challenge the orders passed in I.A.No.365 of 2017 in O.S.No.217 of 2008. When the respondents herein tendered Exs.B.1 to B.11, the petitioners/plaintiffs’ counsel raised an objection for marking of Exs.B.1 and B.3. The trial Court marked Exs.B.1 and B.3 subject to objection. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred the present revision petition.

3. The predominant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Exs.B.1 and B.3 are unregistered sale deeds; therefore, they cannot be exhibited for any purpose. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents/defendants are intending to establish their title basing on Exs.B.1 and B.3.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that unregistered sale deeds cannot be marked for collateral purpose. He further submitted that the respondents are not placing reliance on the above said documents to establish their title.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that Exs.B.1 and B.3 are unregistered sale deeds dated 12.12.1985. It is the case of the respondents/defendants that they have purchased the property under the above said two sale deeds. It is the further case of the respondents that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the part of the suit schedule property by virtue of Exs.B.1 and B.3 unregistered sale deeds. It is needless to say that Section 17 of the Registration Act mandates the registration of the sale deed.

6. It is a settled principle of law that an unregistered document can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. As seen from the written statement, the respondents/defendants are intending to place reliance on the above said documents to establish their possession over the part of the suit schedule property.

7. In order to substantiate the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners is placing reliance on the following decisions: Vengalapudi Manga v. Paluri Kannabbai (2013 (5) ALD 170) wherein this Court held at para Nos.7 and 9 as follows:

7. What is collateral purpose has been explained by the Apex Court as well as this Court in various decisions. As per the well-settled principle of law, any purpose other than the one which relates to establishment of title to the property can be treated as collateral.

9. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff intends to rely upon the document in question to prove his title to the suit schedule property, but not for any other purpose. Therefore, the contention that the document can be looked into for collateral purpose is without substance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the question of looking into the said document as evidence of any collateral transaction does not arise at all.

8. This Court is placing reliance on the following decisions:

Vangala Laxmamma vs. Pasham Narsi Reddy (2010 (3) ALD 382) wherein this Court held at Para Nos.12 and 13 as follows:

12. It is provided under Section 49 of the Registration Act that no document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property unless it is registered. As per the provision made in the provi