JUDGMENT 1. - A short but interesting point has arisen in this revision petition. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on 16.1.1999 before the learned District Judge, Sikar which was later on transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge. This case is that agreement regarding sale of property situated at Nani Gate, Nala Ka Baas, Sikar was executed between the parties on 18.1.1996. Consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/ was agreed, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,00,0001- was paid on the same day. It was agreed that the balance of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid at the time of registration. It was further averred that this balance was also paid on 26.1.1996 and the defendant assured to register the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed the shops on the said property. The defendant went on procrastinating to register the sale deed. On 6.10.1998, respondent No. 3 published a notification in the newspaper that the shops in question belong to him. He admitted before the petitioner, when both of them met, that he was misguided by some persons. Assurance was given to execute the sale deed on 15.1.1998. On 15.1,1998, respondent No. 3 did not come to register the sale deed. Consequently, plaintiff again met him on 26.10.1998. When he denied to execute and register the sale deed, a notice through Advocate was sent on 15.12.1998 and even thereafter the sale deed was not executed. Hence a suit for specific performance as well as permanent injunction was filed 3. The case of the defendants is that the agreement was executed on 18.1.1996 but the amount was not paid to them and consequently possession was not handed over and that construction has been made by the defendants on burn over which they have legal possession. It has also been averred that the agreement to sell required registration Under section 17 of the Registration Act. On the basis of pleadings, as many as 8 issues have been framed. When statement of the plaintiff was being recorded and when he wanted to exhibit the agreement dated 18.1.1996, objection was raised that the document was inadmissible in evidence. This objection was sustained by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, it was material whether the possession was handed over to the plaintiff or not. This objection was sustained by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, it was material whether the possession was handed over to the plaintiff or not. Relying on Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah v. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy, RLW 1999 (3) SC 445 , he submitted that when suit was filed for specific performance and relief of injunction and possession was claimed, the suit was maintainable even on the basis of unregistered sale deed So, according to him when the defendant has not given possession as it is the case of the defendant himself in the written statement, the suit was maintainable on the basis of unregistered agreement as per this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So the document which is unregistered can be exhibited specifically for the reason that the defendant has denied the delivery of possession or even the document in his pleadings. For this purpose, he has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1001/2000 Bhagwati Prasad v. Shakur & Anr. and S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 730/2000 Bhagwati Prasad v. Shakur & Anr. decided on 14.9.2000 in which Hon'ble Verma, J. relying on Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah v. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy, (1997) 7 SCC 114 (supra) held that the document could be received Under section 49 of the Registration Act in evidence. The facts in the case were that the suit was filed for specific performance of contract on the basis of Unregistered document It was held by Hon'ble Verma, J. that Section 17 of the Registration Act would apply only when if a matter is pertaining to registration of a document and not for a comprehensive suit as in the present case where the relief prayed for was directing the defendant to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction or in the alternative for delivery of possession of the property. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in case of Hamda Ammai v. Avadiappa Pathar & three others, (1991) 1 SCC 715 wherein it was held that even an unregistered document can be received as evidence for purposes mentioned in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 5. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in case of Hamda Ammai v. Avadiappa Pathar & three others, (1991) 1 SCC 715 wherein it was held that even an unregistered document can be received as evidence for purposes mentioned in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the document was not registered, it was inadmissible in evidence and could not be read in evidence for any purpose. Reliance was placed on Smt. Devi v. Banwari Lal, RLR 1998 (1) 680 which is a ruling after amendment of Section 17 of the Registration Act in Rajasthan. This amendment was made enforceable with effect from 18.9.1989 by Raj. Amending Act No. 18 of 1989. It was considered by Hon'ble Yadav, J. in the said citation. The amendment has added a clause (f) in Section 17 of the Registration Act. Now the section reads as follows : "(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act. 1866. or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:- .................... .................... (f) agreement to sell immovable property possession whereof has been or is handed over to the purported purchaser." 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case. I find that here is a case of denial or delivery of possession by defendants. Therefore, judgment in Smt. Devi v. Banwari Lal (supra) will not be applicable. It would have been a different case if the delivery of possession would have been admitted by the defendant in their pleadings. Here the defendants have not only denied the recital about delivery of possession in document but have even denied its execution. It is settled law that in such suits, the overall circumstances including the pleadings are to be seen. Here the defendants have not only denied the recital about delivery of possession in document but have even denied its execution. It is settled law that in such suits, the overall circumstances including the pleadings are to be seen. In case of Smt. Devi v. Banwari Lal (supra), the facts were that there was delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiff and it was held in the circumstances that the transferee does not get any right to claim possession or any other right in property on the basis of unregistered agreement for sale because it is inadmissible in evidence. So, in nutshell, according to this judgment, the document can be used only to show the possession but not as a weapon in order to obtain possession. Thus, it is distinguishable on facts. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited the decision of Smt. Devi v. Banwari Lal, AIR 1977 Raj. 85 in which it has been held that a document which is neither written on paper nor registered was not admissible even for collateral purpose. That suit was not for specific performance and hence the citation is distinguishable on facts. Reliance was also placed on Bhanwar Lal v. Shri Srinarayan, DNJ (Raj.) 1999 page 610 in which a suit for eviction was filed. Again it is distinguishable as it was not a case for specific performance of the contract; rather the matter related to some lease deed which required registration. It may be noted that when amendment was made in Section 17 by adding clause (f), no consequential amendment was made in Section 49 of the Registration Act. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding the present case. 8. When in the case in hand, there is a specific denial of the delivery of possession and the defendant claims that even the shops were constructed by him, I think that the document may be received in evidence though it is not registered. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding the present case. 8. When in the case in hand, there is a specific denial of the delivery of possession and the defendant claims that even the shops were constructed by him, I think that the document may be received in evidence though it is not registered. Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in the suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 9. In view of above discussion, the impugned order refusing the admission of the document is set aside. It is held that the document is admissible in evidence. 10. Consequently the revision petition stands allowed. No order as to Costs.Revision Allowed - Order Refusing Admission of Document Set Aside. *******