Judgment ( 1. ) THE question agitated in the present writ petition is about the admissibility of deed dated 1. 1. 1934 which dealt with the property worth at least to Rs. 4,000/- at the relevant time. It was not registered nor it was stamped. The document was executed at Satna which fell within the erstwhile state of Rewa. The provision of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 were applicable at the relevant time. ( 2. ) BEFORE the trial court an interlocutory application was filed u/s 33 of Indian stamp Act, the document was not stamped nor it was registered. Prayer was made to impound it and to receive the penalty along with stamp duty. It was prayed that document be sent to the Collector for Stamp. Prayer was objected by the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that property was partitioned by the document in question. The trial court has held that registration of the document was necessary, as such it cannot be used so as to prove the title being unregistered one. The requisite stamp duty has been ordered to be paid along with the penalty. It has also been held that document can be received in evidence for the collateral purposes after payment of the requisite stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the order the writ petition has been preferred. ( 3. ) SHRI K. N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners, has submitted that the order passed by the trial court inasmuch as document can be read in evidence for collateral purpose is illegal. He has placed reliance on single benchs decision of this Court in Laxman Prasad v. Yagya Narain, 1980 (1) MPWN 283 and section 21 of Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 He has submitted that bare reading of section 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 makes it clear that the document cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. There is difference between the language used in the provision of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and of section 21 of the Rewa Stale registration Act, 1917. ( 4. There is difference between the language used in the provision of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and of section 21 of the Rewa Stale registration Act, 1917. ( 4. ) SHRI R. P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that conjoint reading of section 6 and section 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act,1917 makes it clear that in case parties to the document do not object as to its execution, the document can be received in evidence in a lis in which document has to be used. He has submitted that section 6 has to be read harmoniously with section 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act which makes it clear that document can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. He has also placed reliance on section 5 of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 to submit that after Repeal of corresponding laws by the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 the provision of section 49 of Indian Registration Act would come into play to the rescue of the plaintiff so as to use the document as evidence for the collateral purpose. He has placed reliance on Full Benchs decision of this Court in Sardar Amar Singh and another v. Surinder Kaur, 1975 MPLJ 633 . ( 5. ) FIRST we come to the question whether the provisions of section 49 of the indian Registration Act, 1908 would be applicable or the provisions of the Rewa state Registration Act, 1917 would be applicable in the instant case ? shri R. P. Agrawal, Sr. counsel appearing for aforesaid respondents, has placed reliance on section 5 of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 which provides repeal of corresponding laws to the Merged States (Laws) Act and applicability of the law mentioned in the Schedule. Section 5 is quoted below : " 5. shri R. P. Agrawal, Sr. counsel appearing for aforesaid respondents, has placed reliance on section 5 of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 which provides repeal of corresponding laws to the Merged States (Laws) Act and applicability of the law mentioned in the Schedule. Section 5 is quoted below : " 5. Repeal of corresponding laws :- If immediately before the commencement of this Act there is in force in any of the new Provinces or merged States an Act, Ordinance, Regulation or other law corresponding to an Act, Ordinance or Regulation specified in the Schedule, whether such Act, Ordinance or Regulation is in force by virtue of an Order under the Extra -Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, or by virtue of any other legislative power, such corresponding law shall upon the commencement of this Act, - (a) in a new Province, stand repealed, and (b) in a merged State, stand repealed to the extent to which the law relates to matters with respect to which the Dominion legislature has power to make laws for a Governors Province. " However, section 6 of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 makes it clear that the repeal by section 5 of any corresponding law in force in the new Provinces or merged States immediately before the commencement of this Act shall not affect the previous operation of any such law or any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any such law or any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed. Sub section (1)of Section 6 of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 is quoted below :- "6 (1) The repeal by section 5 of this Act of any corresponding law in force in the new Provinces or merged States immediately before the commencement of this Act shall not affect :- (a) the previous operation of any such law, or (b) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any such law, or (c) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed. The aforesaid provision of section 6 (1) make it clear that the provisions of rewa State Registration Act, 1917 are applicable not that of the Indian Registration act, 1908, thus, we do not agree with the submission raised by learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the aforementioned respondents that the provisions of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act would apply as the document is sought to be adduced in evidence after enforcement of the Indian Registration Act. In our opinion, in view of clear use of language of section 6 of the Merged States (Laws)Act, 1949 even in the legal proceedings instituted after enforcement of Indian registration Act, the investigation or legality has to be judged in accordance with the law which was prevailing at the time when document was executed in the year 1934 i. e. Rewa State Registration Act, 1917. ( 6. ) NOW we come to the submission as to interpretation of provisions of the rewa State Registration Act, 1917. Section 21 of the Act is quoted below : A bare reading of the aforesaid section 21 makes it clear that the documents which are required to be compulsorily registered as per section 1, in case it has not been registered, shall not be received in evidence with respect to the property in any of the litigation. There is no provision made for its admissibility for collateral purposes. Bare reading of section 21 makes it clear that there is difference between section 21 and the proviso of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. There is no provision made for its admissibility for collateral purposes. Bare reading of section 21 makes it clear that there is difference between section 21 and the proviso of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. The proviso to section 49 of Indian Registration Act makes the document admissible for collateral purposes notwithstanding it has not been registered whereas there is clear embargo created by section 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 to receive the unregistered document in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. The section 49 of Indian Registration Act is quoted below : "49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered -No document required by section 17, Added by Act21 of 1929, Sec. 10, (or by any provision of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall - (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: [provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), Now see the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Certain words omitted by Act 48 of 2001, Sec. 6 (w. e. f. 24-9-2001) or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. ] bare reading of the aforesaid and proviso to section 49 of Indian Registration act makes it clear that document which has not been registered can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. Whereas such documents cannot be used even for that purpose as provided u/s 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917. ( 7. ) COMING to the submission raised by Shri R. P. Agrawal, Sr. counsel appearing for respondents with respect to section 6 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917, section deals with the period of the Limitation Act for getting the document registered. ( 7. ) COMING to the submission raised by Shri R. P. Agrawal, Sr. counsel appearing for respondents with respect to section 6 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917, section deals with the period of the Limitation Act for getting the document registered. Section 6 as contained in Chapter 2 is quoted below :-C:\program Files\regentdatatech\image\np_(2)_424_ilr_(MP)_ 2009.jpg Bare reading of section 6 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917 makes it clear that the document shall be charged for the ordinary fee payable, in case it is presented for registration within 4 months of its execution and thereafter after 4 months two times fee shall be recovered and in case the document is not presented within 8 months, shall not be registered. It shall be necessary to reduce in writing fresh document in order to get it registered. It is also provided that such document which is not registered, its entry shall not be made in the unregistered documents until and unless parties thereto agree with respect to execution. Section 21 has different field to operate than Section 6. Section 21 deals with admissibility of document which has not been registered. Section 6 deals with period during which document can be registered. Thus, in our opinion, plain reading of section 21 makes it clear that the compulsory registrable documents cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. In case Indian Registration- Act is applicable, such documents are admissible for collateral purpose as per proviso to section 49 but that is not applicable in the instant case. Consequently, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sardar Amar Singh and another v. Surinder Kaurs case based on section 49 is not applicable. Resultantly, writ petition is allowed. We hold that the document deed dated 1. 1. 1934 being compulsorily registered cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose as provided in section 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917. The impugned order to the extent holding it admissible for collateral purpose is hereby set aside. Trial Court is directed to proceed expeditiously with trial of the case. No costs. Petition allowed.