R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. APPLICANTS/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below holding the alleged deed to be inadmissible in evidence have come to this Court. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants placing his strong reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ramesh chandra v. Kasturchand, Civil Revision No. 460 of 1995 (Indore) decided on 27-11-1996, submits that even if the document is unregistered, to ascertain the nature of possession the document would be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose. Learned Counsel further submits that the Court below was unjustified in not admitting the document in evidence. ( 2 ) IN the matter of Ramesh Chandra (supra), the document before the Court was a mortgage deed, the said document in itself was complete but remained unregistered. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu maheshanuj Pratap Deo and Ors. , learned Single judge, in the matter of Ramesh Chandra (supra) observed that the document which requires registration within the meaning of Section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, can be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso of Section 49, however, permits the use of the document even though registered, as evidence of any collateral transaction, nor required to be effected by registered instrument and can be looked into for collateral purpose ascertaining the nature of possession. ( 3 ) FROM the observations of the Supreme court it would clearly appear that if a particular transaction is not required to be registered then the document which is otherwise compulsorily registrable can be looked into to prove the earlier transaction which is effecting the delivery of possession. In simple terms it can be said that if somebody transfers possession in favour of a third party then such transfer of possession does not require registration and if the fact of transfer of possession is mentioned in a document which requires registration then for all other purposes the document because of the bar contained under Section 59 of the indian Registration Act shall be inadmissible so also to prove the recitals relating to passive of the tide, but can be admitted in evidence to prove delivery of possession only or for ascertaining the nature of possession. In the said case the document was complete and was reciting that the possession was delivered to the document holder in his capacity as a mortgagee. ( 4 ) IN the present case the document in question has been titled as Danpatra (gift-deed ). It recites that the executant of the document had gifted his lands of village Golamuda to his nephews Balak Ram and Chaitram both sons of Dhundharam. The document does not bear any endorsement under the hands of said donee that they had accepted the gift and posession was delivered to them. The document does not recite that the said donees accepted the gift, obtained the possession and were ready to become owner of the property. Under the law a gift would not be complete unless the possession of the property is given to the donee and he accepted the gift. If the document does not say that the possession was delivered to the donees and they had accepted the gift the document would not be termed as a gift-deed. When the document does not make any recital relating to delivery of possession then the document would not be admissible even for collateral purpose because the document does not say that the possession was delivered to someone. ( 5 ) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the arguments and the document, I do not find any wrong in the order passed by the court below. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .