N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree, dt. 31-7-1980 of the Civil Judge Yadgir, in R. A. No. 114 of 1979 on his file, By that judgment the Civil Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsiff, Chittapur, dated 31-3-1978 in O. S. No. 34 of 1976 on his file. The appellants 1 to 3 herein were, defendants 1 to 3 respectively in the court below and the respondent herein was the plaintiff there. In the course of this judgment i shall be referring to the parties in the rank in which they stood in the trial court. ( 2 ) THE facts that have led to this liligation may briefly be, stated. The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers. They are sons of one Budansab yadgir of village Dandojti in Chittapur Taluk. In the suit he had filed, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the owner of the suit lands and an injunction restraining. the defendants from interfering with his rights in respect of the said lands, they being sy. No. 378 measuring 6 acres 32 guntas and Sy. No. 399 measuring 12 acres 13 guntas. According to him the defendants had absolutely no manner of right, title, or interest over these lands, but, in spite of that, were trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the same. Is response to this claim the defendants contended in their written statement that the plaintiff was not the absolute owner of the lands in question claimed by him; that he was alsd not in possession of the same; that the propertiss had been jointly acquired by the father of the plaintiff and themselves (defendants); that, when these properties were purchased under two separate sale deeds, they were purchased only in the name of the plaintiff; that these lands and other properties belonging to the family came +o be partitioned in the month of May 1974, and that at that partition one half of sy. No. 378 was allotted to the 1st defendant and the other half to the 3rd defendant; that one half of Sy. No. 399 was allotted to the plainif and the other half to the 2nd defendant; that evidencing this fact of partition a writing had been made on 1. 5. No. 378 was allotted to the 1st defendant and the other half to the 3rd defendant; that one half of Sy. No. 399 was allotted to the plainif and the other half to the 2nd defendant; that evidencing this fact of partition a writing had been made on 1. 5. 74; that since the date of partition the persons, who had been allotted sep arate shares in the two survey numbers as stated above, have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares; that allegations made contrary to this by the plaintiff in his plaint were all not true; that mutation entries in the revenue records have been effected on the basis of the said partition and that in these circumstances the plaintiff's suit be dismissed with costs. A further statement, in reply was given by the plaintiff, in answer to the written statement of the defendants, theredn asserting the averments he had made in the plaint and denying the contentions raised by the defendants. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff had framed the following eight issues;"1. Whether the plaintiff proves his title to the suit lands Sy. No. 378 measuring 6 acres 32 gs. , and the land sy. No. 399 measuring 12 acres 13 gs , of village Dandoti?2. whether the plaintiff further proves his lawful, possession of the suit lands on the date of suit?3. Whether the plaintiff proves the obstruction by the defendants as contended? ( 4 ) WHETHER the, defendants prove that the suit lands were purchased by the father of the plaintiff and defendants when the said father and the parties of this suit were living jointly? ( 5 ) WHETHER the defendants further prove that the consideration amount to purchase the suit lands was paid out of the loan amount secured by the defendant No. 1 in his own name? ( 6 ) WHETHER the defendants prove that the sale-deeds in respect of these suit lands were executed in the name of the pla:ntiff as 'benami'? ( 7 ) WHETHER the defendants prove that in a partition the suit land, Sy. ( 6 ) WHETHER the defendants prove that the sale-deeds in respect of these suit lands were executed in the name of the pla:ntiff as 'benami'? ( 7 ) WHETHER the defendants prove that in a partition the suit land, Sy. No. 379 of Dandoti was allotted to the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 equally and that the suit land S. No. 399 was allotted to the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 equally with other properties as contended in para-7 of the written statement?" after recording the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing them he answered issues Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff, issues Nos. 4 to 7 against the defendants, and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff as sought for. 4. In the appeal before him the learned Civil Judge formulated the following four points: 1. Whether the appellants-defendants have proved that the suit lands were purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff-respondent as contended? 2. Whether the alleged partition of 1. 5. 74 has been proved by the defendants-appellants? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower court needs any interference? answering the relevant points against the defendants he has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsiff as stated above. 5. The only point that was urged, by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the courts below had erned in wholly rejecting the memorandum of partition referred to by his clients, on the ground that it was unregistered without taking it into consideration at least for collateral purposes and, therefore, the matter requires to be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of this aspect of his case and for fresh disposal according to law6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the concurrent findings of the courts below, submitted that, in the circumstances of the case, the qusetion of taking into consideration that memorandum of partition for collateral purposes does not arise and that there is no. need to order for a retrial and, therefore the appeal be dismissed. 7. The parties are Mohammedans. The concept of a joint family, as is common among Hindus, is unknown to the personal law of the Mohammedans. need to order for a retrial and, therefore the appeal be dismissed. 7. The parties are Mohammedans. The concept of a joint family, as is common among Hindus, is unknown to the personal law of the Mohammedans. If a property had been acquired by a member of the Mohammedan family there cannot be any inference that it had been acquired for the benefit of the family unless it is proved tha the acquisition had been made from the funds or assets of the family taken to gether. In the instant case the two do cuments, under which the lands in question have been acquired', stand in the name of the plaintiff. He asserts that he, by himself had acquired the said properties. As already stated, the defendants' contention is, that the two lands have been, acquired by them and their father; that all the family properties including these two lands had been subjected to a partition; and at that partition these two items had been allotted to the members of the family as stated in their written statement. The memorandum of partition, referred to by them, has been brought on record and marked as Ex. D-1. The document has not been, registered as provided under the Indian registration Act, 1908 (the Act) S. 49 of the Act provides that:"no document required, by section 17 or by any provision, of the Transfer property Act, 1882 to be, registered shall (a) affect any immovable, property, (b) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. . . . . unless it has been registered". The proviso to this section provides that such an unregistered document may, for purposes amongst others enumerated therein, be received 'as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Though this part of the proviso refers to "collateral transaction" Courts have considered the admissibiiity of such unregistered documents not merely to prove collateral transactions but also to prove what they have chosen to call, "collateral purposes'. ( 8 ) IN so far as partition is concerned be it amongst Hindus or Mohammedans such a document involving im- moveable properties, if executed is required to be registered as provided under S. 17 of the Act. ( 8 ) IN so far as partition is concerned be it amongst Hindus or Mohammedans such a document involving im- moveable properties, if executed is required to be registered as provided under S. 17 of the Act. If it cannot be admitted in evidence to prove partition, it can be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. ( 9 ) THE main relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit is declaration, of his title to the suit properties. The consequential relief is injunction. Partition is set up by way of defence to the main relief. So far as the consequential relief is concerned the defendants contention has to be understood as saying that the plaintiff was not in exclusive possession as claimed by him, and an the other hand, they or some of them have been, in possession of portions of these properties and they are in such possession lawfully and, therefore, the plaintiff should not be granted the in- junctive relief sought for by him. The question of possession, which comes to the fore in this fashion, may be con sidered as a collateral one in relation to the partition set up by them. If evidencing the factum of partition that memorandum, not being registered, is inadmissible, is it not receivable in evidence at least for proving this collateral part or purpose. it being of their having got into possession lawfully? There, have been several dessions and some, of the Supreme Court, which have taken the view that for such a purpose, which is described as a collateral one, a document of this nature may be received in evidence. I need not refer to all of them, suffice it to note a decision of the supreme Court in Rana Vidya Bhushan v. Rati Ram (1 ). The Court observes as follows:"the agreement was unregistered. It could not create in favour of the defendant the right of a tenant for a period of 15 years. The agreement was on that account inadmissible in evidence to support that claim. But in support of the plea that his possession was that of a tenant, the defendant was entitled to rely upon the recitals contained in that agreement of lease. The agreement was on that account inadmissible in evidence to support that claim. But in support of the plea that his possession was that of a tenant, the defendant was entitled to rely upon the recitals contained in that agreement of lease. The document required by law to be registered, if unregistered, is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affect ng immoveable property, but it may be admitted as evidence of collateral facts or for any collateral purpose, that is for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring assig in, limiting or extinguishing a right to immoveable property" (Head Note ). ( 10 ) IF nature of possession is a colteral fact in a case like this, come courts have also held certain Admissions contained in such documents can be construed as collateral facts and, to prove such facts - admissions of parties or executants - such documents could be received in evidence. In this connection the following observations of the Allahabad High Court in hari Lal v. Amrik Singh (2) may be noted:"a partition which requires to be effected by a registered instrument may be inadmissible but the severance of joint status which is not required to be effected by a registered instrument would be collateral transaction evidence of which would certainly be admissible under the proviso to the section. An antecedent title, the nature and character of possessinn an admission or an acknowledgement relationship of parties and their state of mind may be some of the instances of collateral purposes for which a document requiring registration may be looked into even though it is unregistered" (Head Note) (underliing (italics) supplied) ( 11 ) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that the plaintiff, being a party to that memorandum of partition, had made certain admissions which are incorporated therein and that the courts below should have take,n note of those admissions in appreciating the rival contentions of the parties and in examining the points or issues involved. As to the importance of admissions made by the parties to the proceeding and what value should be attached to them, Counsel places reliance on a decision of the Supreme court in Biswanath Prasad v. Dwarka prasad (3 ). As to the importance of admissions made by the parties to the proceeding and what value should be attached to them, Counsel places reliance on a decision of the Supreme court in Biswanath Prasad v. Dwarka prasad (3 ). Placing reliance on a previous ruling of that Court their Lordships have observed as follows:"there is a cardinal distinction between a party who is the author of a prior statement and a witness who is examined and is sought to be discredited by use of his prior statement. In the former case an admission by a party is substantive evidence if it fulfills the requirements of S. 21; in the latter case a prior statement is used to discredit the credibility of the witness and does not become substantive evidence. In the former case, there is no necessary requirement of the statement containing the admission having to be put to the party bacause it is evidence proprio vigore; in the latter case the Court can not be invited to disbelieve a witness on the strength of a prior contradictory statement unless it has been put to him, as required by S. 145" (Head-Note) it is true, as observed by their Lordships in Biswanath Prasad's case (supra) that it is not the requirement of law that before prior admission of a party is received it should have been put to him or his attention should have been drawn to it as in the case of prior admissions of witnesses. Counsel, for the appellants relying on, the observations made in this case, submits that it would not be necessary to put the admissions if any found at Ex. D-1 to the plaintiff. Though neither s. 21 nor S. 145 of the Evidence Act require such admissions to be, put to the party who had made such admis sions, justice and fair play do require that the attention of the party is called to such admissions and the explanation, if any, offered by him is taken into consideration before considering the probative value of such admissions. I could not find anything contrary to this notion either in Biswanath Prasad's case (supra,) or in Bharat Singh v. Bhagi Rathi (4) which has been followed in Biswanath Prasad's case. I could not find anything contrary to this notion either in Biswanath Prasad's case (supra,) or in Bharat Singh v. Bhagi Rathi (4) which has been followed in Biswanath Prasad's case. As observed by the Supreme Court in singh's case (para-19) "what weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence". That is why, to consider the probative value to be attached to such admissions, it is necessary that the same be brought to the notice of the maker, if he is a party to the proceeding, and his views taken note of for what it is worth. ( 12 ) LET us now examine how the courts below have considered the partition deed Ex. D-1. The Munsiff, no doubt, went into the recitals of this document, but came to the conclusion that there were contradictions between what is stated therein and the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore not much value should be attached to it. He has not considered the implication of that document from the view points referred to above. In para-17 of his judgment the Civil judge observes that Ex. D-l being an unregistered document, was inadmissible in evidence and thus excluded from his purview. Thus, the courts below have failed to examine as to whether Ex D-l or the writings made therein should be taken in to consideration for any collateral purpose and if such consideration was required as to what implications the same would have on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. In order to enable them to do so the matter is required to be remitted to the trial court for a fresh disposal. The Court is at liberty to examine all issues on merits afresh in the light of what is stated above and without being constrained in any manner by observation if any made in this judgment on facts. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of both the courts below are hereby set aside. The master involvedig remitted to the trial court for a fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made above. No costs. --- *** --- .