( 1 ) THIS is defendants' petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to assail the validity of the interlocutory Order dated 6/10/2005 passed by the Civil Judge class I, Anjad, in Civil Suit No. 19-A/2004. By the order impugned, application filed by petitioners for taking the unregistered partition deed on record and to receive it in evidence was rejected. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively, are the widow and daughter of late Ashok, son of petitioner No. 1 and brother of petitioner No. 2 and 3 respectively. It is also undisputed that Ashok's undivided share in the suit property i. e. joint family property comprising of agricultural holdings and a residential house, more particularly described in the plaint, was inherited by respondent No. 1 and 2 upon his death. It is further not disputed that after the death of Ashok, respondent No. 1 and 2, had been living with the parents of respondent No. 1 and after their death, now respondent No. 1 and 2 are living with the brother of respondent No. 1. As per the plaint, case of respondent No. 1. and 2, in nut shell, is that petitioner No. 1 to 3 in connivance with revenue official partitioned the suit property amongst them and unlawfully deprived respondent No. 1 and 2 of Ashok's undivided share, therefore, the suit as mentioned above. Petitioners, who are the contesting defendants, opposed the claim in suit and claimed that by virtue of partition deed dated 20-5-1992, respondent No. 1 was given in hard cash Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) in lieu of late Ashok's share and Petitioner No. 1 also undertook to meet the marriage expenses of respondent No. 2 at the time of her marriage in future. ( 3 ) DURING trial of the suit, petitioners sought permission to bring on record the partition deed and tender it in evidence. Respondents opposed the prayer. By the order impugned, learned trial Judge refused permission, and held that in view of the statutory bar, the unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in evidence. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners contended that the trial Judge failed to see and appreciate that statutory bar under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act is inapplicable and the document could be received in evidence for collateral purposes. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners contended that the trial Judge failed to see and appreciate that statutory bar under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act is inapplicable and the document could be received in evidence for collateral purposes. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 supported the order impugned and submitted that no interference is warranted with it. ( 5 ) AFTER having heard rival submissions and going through the material available on record, I find no merit and substance in the present petition. ( 6 ) SECTION 17 of the India Registration act refers to the documents that are required to be registered. Section 49 ibid provides for the consequences of non registration of such of documents which require registration. One of the consequences is that such unregistered document cannot be received as evidence of terms of any transaction affecting immovable property comprised therein. The exception to this general rule is that such an unregistered document, though inadmissible as evidence of transaction affecting immovable property, can be admitted for limited collateral purposes such as to know the nature and character of possession of party to the document. Petitioners have failed to show any collateral purpose qua the alleged unregistered partition deed dated 20-5-1992 so as to bring it within the exception to the general rule. In view of this no illegality or jurisdictional error could be attributed to the order impugned. ( 7 ) THE upshot of the foregoing discussion and the inevitable result is that this petition must fail and accordingly it is hereby dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs of this petition. Petition dismissed. .