JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - This appeal is filed by Defendants 1, 4 and 5 against the confirming judgment of the learned District Judge, Cuttack decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property consisting of and 3 acre of land and a house. This property originally belonged to Defendants 2 and S. By Ext. 2 dated 5.8-1936, Defendants 2 and 3 sold 'OS, acre of land and the house to the /first Defendant Appellant. The sale deed purports to have been executed on a stamp paper for a consideration of Rs. 17/- though the real consideration Is Rs. 2001-.- The remaining land belonging to Defendants 2 and 3, namely, 22 decimals was sold to the Plaintiffs by Ext. S dated 5.8.1936, that is the same day. As far as this document also is concerned the consideration purports to be Rs. 22/- though the real consideration is Rs. 100/-. On 3.3.1937 under Ext. 4, both the properties covered by Exts. 2 and 3 were again sold by Defendants 2 and 3 to the Plaintiffs for Rs. 37/-, according to the sale deed, though the real consideration is Rs. 315/- and is paid. It is also alleged by the Plaintiffs that on 4-11.1936 Defendant No. 1 executed a Nadabi on the back side of Ext. 2. The Plaintiffs got their names mutated for the suit properties on 14.2-1941. 2. The allegation of the contesting Defendants was that the kabala of Defendant No. 1 (Ext. 2) was lost in 1936 ; that he obtained a certified copy of the same on 11-2-1941 ; and that both of them went for mutation of their names, Defendant No. 1 denied the Nadabi. 3. The trial court in the first instance decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate Court remanded the suit for a finding on the issue with regard to adverse possession and asked the trial court to submit a finding. The trial Court submitted a finding that the Plaintiffs succeeded in proving that they were in possession since the date of their purchase. Finally, the appeal by Defendants 1, 4 and 5 was dismissed by the appellate Court. 4. Mr. M.S. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that Ext. 4 was not properly stamped and ought not to have been received In evidence. Finally, the appeal by Defendants 1, 4 and 5 was dismissed by the appellate Court. 4. Mr. M.S. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that Ext. 4 was not properly stamped and ought not to have been received In evidence. He also contended that as the value of the property conveyed by Ext. 4: was Rs. 315/., there was also a fraud on registration. On both these counts, Mr. Rao contends that the document on the basis of which the Plaintiffs claim title to a void document and ought not to have been received in evidence. He relied upon a decision of the Judicial Committee In the Case of AIR 1946 51 (Privy Council) in which the Judicial Committee held, The words 'for any purpose' in Section 35, Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. Where an unstamped document is admitted to proof of some collateral matter it is certainly admitted in evidence for that purpose which the Statute has prohibited. Consequently an unstamped partition-deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for the purposes of determining even the factum of partition as distinct from its terms. On the authority of this decision, it is clear that an unstamped document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose. It has next to be seen whether a document which is improperly stamped as in this case would also be inadmissible in evidence. The wording in Section 35 makes me to incline to the view that unless a document is property stamped, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The words "unless such instrument is duly stamped" in Section 35 of the Stamp Act are clear to convey that meaning. Accordingly in this case Ext. 4 which is stamped on a sum of Rs. 37/- conveying properties the real consideration of which is Rs. 315/- is not duly stamped and consequently u/s 35 of the Stamp Act is not admissible in evidence. These points raised before me were not pleaded in the written statement. No doubt, these points were canvassed before the lower appellate court, but were not accepted. The points now raised, in my opinion, are points which require investigation and a decision by the courts below. 5. Mr. These points raised before me were not pleaded in the written statement. No doubt, these points were canvassed before the lower appellate court, but were not accepted. The points now raised, in my opinion, are points which require investigation and a decision by the courts below. 5. Mr. R.N. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that a finding on these points may not be necessary in view of the categorical and concurrent finding of both the courts below that the Plaintiffs succeeded in proving title by adverse possession. But I am of opinion that the finding of the courts below on the question of adverse possession is influenced by their finding on the question of title which they found in favour of the Plaintiffs. Having found title in favour of the Plaintiffs on the strength of Ext. 4, they discussed the oral evidence relating to possession and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs succeeded in proving their possession for more than 12 years. In this view of the matter, I am of opinion that it would be better in the interests of justice that the courts below come to a conclusion on all the points at the same time. 6. I would therefore set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to the trial court for disposal according to daw on all the issues including the points now raised by Mr. Rao, namely, whether Ext. 4 is admissible in evidence on account of not being properly stamped and also on account of consequent fraud on registration. 7. As the Appellants did not take up this invalidity of the sale deed in 'their written statement, I would direct that the costs already incurred by the Plaintiffs in the courts below should be paid by the Defendants-Appellants. Costs of this appeal would abide the result. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the above observations and the case is sent back to the trial court for disposal according to law. It may be noted that the courts below are to come to their own conclusions with regard to the validity or the admissibility or otherwise of Ext. 4 without being influenced by the observations in this judgment. Appeal allowed-Suit remanded. Final Result : Allowed