ORDER : 1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 6-8-1951 in civil suit No. 74 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, holding that the document dated 23-5-1948, filed by the defendant is inadmissible in evidence and refusing to permit him to confront the plaintiff with it in his cross-examination. 2. The non-applicant plaintiff's suit was for division of a house said to have been purchased and owned jointly by the parties in equal shares from their father and for separate possession of the plaintiff's share. The defendant's main contention was two-fold, viz., (1) that no part of the consideration of the sale-deed for the house was paid by the plaintiff, and (2) that on 23-5-1948 there was a settlement of disputes over the immoveable properties of the parties and a memorandum was prepared and signed by them and others who were present and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the house. On issues being framed, the plaintiff was placed in the witness-box for his evidence and in cross-examination the defendant's learned counsel sought to question him in regard to what is called a memorandum dated 23-5-1948. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was "a deed of cancellation so far as its first entry is concerned" and as such was compulsorily registrable and could not be used even for proving a recital in the entry No. 1 in it and hence it was inadmissible in evidence and rejected it. It is this order that is challenged. 3. The first point for determination is whether the Court should entertain the revision petition. The ordinary rule is that this Court refuses to interfere in a case at an interlocutory stage except in extreme cases. In my opinion, if the question of admissibility or otherwise of the document is not examined at the early stage to which the suit has reached, there is a possibility of multiplicity of proceedings in case the decision is against the defendant and the appellate Court does not agree with the view of the trial Court which finding would entail a remand and a fresh decision and an appeal over again. To avoid such multiplicity, therefore, I feel that this Court should examine the question in this case and decide it. 4. To avoid such multiplicity, therefore, I feel that this Court should examine the question in this case and decide it. 4. The next point for determination is whether the document was compulsorily registrable and even if so, it was admissible in evidence to prove a collateral purpose. The document was prepared with a view to an agreement towards an amicable division of the property of the father. According to the defendant there was a mere agreement as stated in the document. It is not said that as per this document different items of the property were allotted to the brothers and transfers were effected. The document proposes that particular steps should be and not have been taken in respect of the different items of the property. The last portion of the document even says that all the brothers admitted on oath all the items except numbers 10 to 13 and out of the four brothers one Jawad Husain left under protest. 5. For the purpose of construing the document it has to be read as a whole as contended by the learned counsel for the non-applicant. It would thus appear that the document read as a whole evidences not accomplishment of the transfer or creation or extinction of any interest in the immoveable property, but a mere proposal to do so. The question is not, as in the case of Ganpat Gangaji v. Namdeo Bhagwanji, AIR 1941 Nag 209, cited on behalf of the non-applicant, whether there was an expression of intention to sever, but whether there was actually a division of property and as such, in my opinion, that decision of the Nagpur High Court is not applicable to the case on hand. It must be remembered that no question of severance of interest arises in the case of Mohammadens as in the case of a joint Hindu family or coparcenary. 6. Examining and translating the document in regard to the item No. 1 of the house property, the correct translation is : "Residential house, the sale-deed of which is in the name of Tufail Ahmad and Anwar Ahmad, the rupees for which have been paid by Sayed Tufail Ahmad and Anwar Ahmad did not pay any rupees therefor, should be transferred to Tufail Ahmad." (Muntakil Kiya Jay.) The learned Sub-Judge's translation of the last expression as noted : "is transferred exclusively" is incorrect. This is conceded by the learned counsel for the non-applicant during arguments. This clearly states what the parties expressed in respect of the house and I am clear that it indicates only a proposal to transfer the house, with the adjectival clauses qualifying it, to Tufail Ahmad. I am further clear that taken as a whole or in part, the document is not a deed of partition, but falls within the ambit of Cl. (v) of sub-s. (2) of S. 17, Registration Act, and as such, was not compulsorily registrable and was thus admissible in evidence. 7. The allegation of the defendant was that no part of the consideration for the sale-deed was paid by the plaintiff and that this fact had been admitted by the latter in the document. It is in order to prove this fact that the defendant seeks to prove the admission in the rebuttal of the allegation of the plaintiff as placed in issue No. 2. It is doubtful if the issue No. 5 is correct as it is not the case of the parties that the house was owned by their father till his death. 8. It is doubtful if the issue No. 5 is correct as it is not the case of the parties that the house was owned by their father till his death. 8. Even if, therefore, the document was compulsorily registrable under the proviso to S. 49, Registration Act, it is admissible to prove a collateral transaction viz : the admission of the plaintiff, who is said to have signed the document, that : "Rupess for which have been paid by Sayed Tufail Ahmad and Anwar Ahmad did not pay any rupees therefor." In Rajani Kanta v. Bashiram Mestari, AIR 1929 Cal 636, it has been held that : "Although under S. 49 document which should be registered and is not registered is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affecting property, yet when it is put forward as containing an admission it is not being put forward as evidence of a transaction affecting property and so it cannot be said to be inadmissible as evidence of an admission." In Devi Dayal v. Wazir Chand, 61 Ind Cas 328 (Lah), it has been held that : "An unregistered deed of lease for a period of more than one year, although inadmissible in evidence as a lease or as a document proving title, may be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving an admission contained therein." Similar observations are found in Sailesh Chandra v. Bireshwar Chatterjee, AIR 1930 Cal 559, and it has been added that : "When such a statement is admitted as an admission it is only a piece of evidence and it is open to the party who has made the admission to show that it was made in circumstances which did not make the admission binding on him or her as the case may be." The learned counsel for the non-applicant referred to the decisions in Sukhlal v. Bisesar, AIR 1929 Nag 115 and Narayan Sakharam v. Co-operative Central Bank, Malkapur, AIR 1938 Nag 434. I have perused the decisions and find that they are not applicable to the question for decision on hand. 9. These were the only two points raised in the revision petition. The document dated 23-6-1948 is held to be admissible in evidence and the revision petition is, therefore, allowed with costs against the non-applicant who shall bear his own costs. I have perused the decisions and find that they are not applicable to the question for decision on hand. 9. These were the only two points raised in the revision petition. The document dated 23-6-1948 is held to be admissible in evidence and the revision petition is, therefore, allowed with costs against the non-applicant who shall bear his own costs. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, rejecting the document and refusing to permit it to be proved, is set aside and it is ordered that the document be admitted and be allowed to be proved for the purpose as stated by the defendant and the evidence be proceeded with. Pleaders' fees in this Court will be Rs. 25 on each side, if certified in time. Revision allowed.