( 1 ) CRP is taken up for hearing with consent of parties. This is a defendants revision petition. The defendant being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court in refusing to mark the family settlement deed which is before us ( 2 ) BY order dated 3. 10. 2001, the Trial Court held that the document that was sought to be marked by defendant could not be marked on the ground that the document was not registered. ( 3 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 plaintiff is that the document is nor registered and the petitioner claims right under the document, which is inadmissible in evidence. Further, the learned Counsel submits that the Trial Court was justified in declining to mark the document. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 1988 KAR 2067 (Umakanth Rao Vs. Lalithbai) wherein, this Court held that whenever a document is produced during trial, admissibility has to be decided before admitting the same in evidence. It is further held that the document effecting partition worth more than Rs. 100/-, not being recorded anterior to partition, if not registered cannot be received in evidence to prove the partition. The Court however held that admissibility of a document is permissible if it can be established for a collateral purpose and if the document prima-facie shows that the petitioner is in possession or members of the joint family. The law is clear on this aspect of the matter. If the document seeks to establish any substantial right other than collateral purpose, the document can not be marked. In this case, it was submitted that the document that was sought to be marked is only for collateral purpose. It is made clear that the evidenciary value shall be strictly for collateral purpose. ( 5 ) THIS proposition of law is well settled in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in ILR 2003 Kar 2253 (Bondar Singh and Others vs. Nihal Singh and Others) where in it has held as follows: under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land with this observation, CRP is allowed. The impugned order dated 3. 10. 2001 passed by Trial Court is set-aside. The Trial Court is requested to accept the document for the limited extent of a collateral purpose. All contentions are left open. --- *** --- .