JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the District Judge, Chittorgarh in Civil Suit No. 29/09, whereby the document alleged to be a partition deed has been held to be inadmissible in evidence for want of registration so also for insufficiency of stamp. 2. A suit for recovery of Rs. 83,300/- filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is being contested by the Petitioner/Defendant by filing a written statement thereto. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the trial Court has framed the issues. 3. During the cross examination of the Respondent/Plaintiff, a document i.e. a partition deed sought to be exhibited in evidence was objected to on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant. The trial Court after due consideration arrived at the conclusion that the document sought to be exhibited in evidence is a partition deed and, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence for want of registration so also for insufficiency of stamp. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the document sought to be exhibited in evidence cannot be considered to be a partition deed and, therefore, the Court below has erred in holding that the same is not admissible in evidence inasmuch as, it is not duly registered and not properly stamped. In the alternative, it is submitted by learned Counsel that even if the document is held to be a partition deed, it is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of " Inder Lal v. Abdul Salam, AIR 1983 Raj. 57 ", and a Bench decision of Orissa High Court in " Purnabashi Mishra v. Raj Kutnari Mishra, AIR 1995 Ori. 284 ". 5. A perusal of the photo copy of the document placed on record as Annexure 5 reveals that it is not executed to evidence a previous partition but the same is intended to be the evidence of partition by metes and bounds and it declares exclusive title of the co-sharer over the property falling in their share. 284 ". 5. A perusal of the photo copy of the document placed on record as Annexure 5 reveals that it is not executed to evidence a previous partition but the same is intended to be the evidence of partition by metes and bounds and it declares exclusive title of the co-sharer over the property falling in their share. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has committed no error in arriving at the finding that the document sought to be exhibited in evidence is a partition deed which is required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Section 49, the same is not admissible in evidence for want of registration. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel that the documents admissible in evidence for collateral purpose for proving certain clauses contained therein. It is settled law that if a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving a clause therein cannot be considered to be using it for collateral purpose. Reliance in this regard may be placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of " K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, 2008 (105) RD 369 (SC) : 2008 (72) ALR 638 (SC) : 2008 (68) AIC 78 (SC) : 2008 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 771 : (2008) 8 SCC 564 ", Moreover, a document insufficiently stamped is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose. 7. In view of the discussion above, in considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******