Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the order of the trial Court refusing to admit in evidence the document dated 19-6-1966 on the ground that the document was a deed of partition and required registration; that the document could not be looked into even for collateral purpose. 2. The fact that the parties had effected a partition is not in dispute. What the plaintiff says is that a right was reserved to him to flow water held in his house through a drain passing over the portion allotted to the defendant's share. The defendant's plea is that by arrangement on 19-6-1966 the plaintiff's right to flow water was to stop after a year. The plaintiff had to make his own arrangement for the water flow. The defendant was at liberty to put his new flooring and stop the plaintiff flow of water traversing his portion of the house. Held : It is obvious that the document was not sought to be used as evidence creating or extinguishing any right in immovable property. A recital was then relied upon as an admission made by a party or to explain the nature of possession of each party after the family arrangement was implemented. The use the document for such a purpose was a collateral purpose within the meaning of section 49 of the Registration Act (See AIR 1973. Allahabad 382; Shyam Sunder v. Siva Ram at para 11 and AIR 1974 Madras 259; C.S. Kumarswami v. A. Surluder]. 3. To the same effect is the pronouncement of this Court in 1975 JLJ 667 (FB) Sardar Amar Singh v. Surendar Kaur. 4. The learned counsel for non-applicant has relied on Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (AIR 1976 SC 80) and decision of this Court dated 30-7-1976 in Civil Revision No. 830 of 1975 Smt. Kusum Kumari v. Rangnath Pathak. But the authorities do not seem to lay down any contrary view. A distinction has got to be borne in mind whether the document was being introduced as evidence in proof of partition i.e., in proof of the stage of dividing properties by metes and bounds for whether as a memorandum for something already done. But the authorities do not seem to lay down any contrary view. A distinction has got to be borne in mind whether the document was being introduced as evidence in proof of partition i.e., in proof of the stage of dividing properties by metes and bounds for whether as a memorandum for something already done. Besides, if the parties do not claim title through a deed but enter into possession by virtue of a family arrangement already made, irrespective of the execution of the deed, the recital in the deed, could always be looked into to explain the nature of possession or for proof of an admission of certain premises made. 5. The trial Court was in error in striking out evidence altogether relating the document dated 19-1-1966. The document could be used for collateral purposes. The revision is accordingly accepted. The trial Court will permit evidence to be led on the document. Revision allowed.