ORDER : R.C. Lahoti, CJI. Leave granted. 2. In a civil suit, a document dated 7-12-1991 styled as "agreement" was sought to be tendered in evidence. It is executed on stamp paper but is not registered. The admissibility of the document was objected to by the opposite party submitting that the document was compulsorily registrable and as it was not registered it was inadmissible in evidence. The objection prevailed with the trial court which refused to admit the document in evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a civil revision in the High Court which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order dated 7-10-1999 passed by the trial court holding the agreement dated 7-12-1991 inadmissible in evidence for want of registration cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 4. A perusal of the document reveals that Nanagram, the executant, is one of the four brothers. He purchased the property about 23-24 years prior to 7-12-1991. The document recites that the land was purchased by the four brothers jointly, though the sale deed was executed only in the name of the executant. The document further goes on to record that in order to confer title on all the brothers the executant would execute sale deeds in favour of the brothers the consideration having been received already in equal shares from the brothers when the property was purchased years before. 5. Such a document does not fall within the category of any of the documents listed in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. No title is created, declared, assigned, limited or extinguished, whether in the present or in future, by the said document dated 7-12-1991. The document merely contains a recital as to a pre-existent title and also a promise to execute sale deeds in future so as to confer title by such sale deeds which are yet to be executed consistently with the share of the brothers in the property. The trial court clearly erred in holding the document to be compulsorily registrable. The refusal of the trial court to admit the document in evidence has occasioned a failure of justice insofar as the appellants are concerned. 6. The appeal is allowed. The trial court clearly erred in holding the document to be compulsorily registrable. The refusal of the trial court to admit the document in evidence has occasioned a failure of justice insofar as the appellants are concerned. 6. The appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court dated 18-2-2002 as also of the trial court dated 7-10-1999 are set aside. The case is sent back to the trial court which shall admit the document in evidence and proceed to hear and decide the suit in accordance with law. 7. No order as to costs. .