Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial question of law was formulated by order dated 31-3-1984 at the time of admission of this appeal:-" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Court committed an error of law in holding that before the filing of the suit the plaintiff had acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession and he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit by the defendants ?" ( 2. ) THE facts relevant for the decision of the question referred to above are that - Rupaji was owner of the house in dispute. Plaintiff Hiralal and defendant No. 1 Bhanwarlal are his sons. ( 3. ) PLAINTIFFs case was that he had purchased the house in dispute from his father by unregistered Sale Deed dated 26-4-1951 (Ex. P-1) for Rs. 150/-and since then he was in exclusive possession of this house. The defendant No. 1 has taken possession of this house during the pendency of the suit on 3-4-1979. ( 4. ) THE case of the defendant No. 1 was that the alleged Sale Deed by Rupaji, in favour of the plaintiffs, is a fictitious document. It is unregistered and, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff was never in possession of this house. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court held that the document Ex. P-1 being unregistered, is not admissible in evidence in view of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, and, therefore, dismissed the suit. In appeal, the First Appellate Court has held that the unregistered Sale Deed Ex. P-1 was executed by Rupaji and the possession of the house was delivered to the plaintiff on 26-4-1951. Therefore, the plaintiff has acquired title to the house in dispute by adverse possession. ( 6. ) IN this second appeal the only point which has been argued is whether the unregistered Sale Deed Ex. P-1, is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of the possession of the plaintiff. It is well settled that an unregistered document is admissible as evidence of the nature or character of a persons possession. In Bhaiya Ramanuj Vs. P-1, is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of the possession of the plaintiff. It is well settled that an unregistered document is admissible as evidence of the nature or character of a persons possession. In Bhaiya Ramanuj Vs. Lalu ( AIR 1981 SC 1937 ) it has been held by the Supreme Court: "proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits the use of the document, even though unregistered, as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. " The same view has been taken by this Court in Sukhibai Vs. Limya ( 1987 JLJ 159 ). It was held by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Haranchandra Vs. Kali Prasanna (AIR 1932 Calcutta 83) that: "the date on which possession began, is a collateral purpose. " ( 7. ) THE unregistered Sale Deed dated 26-4-1951 (Ex. P-1) must be held as receivable as evidence of a collateral transaction such as the origin of purchasers entry into the house and the character of his subsequent possession. The First Appellate Court has not committed any legal error in relying upon the unregistered Sale Deed Ex. P-1 for the limited purpose of holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the house in dispute from the year 1951 in his own right. His possession was for a period of more than twelve years. Therefore, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. ( 8. ) THIS appeal is dismissed. ( 9. ) SECOND Appeal dismissed