Judgment Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-4-2005 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 254-A/04 whereby the objections raised by the respondent about admissibility of the document dated 26-1-1987 in evidence on the ground that the same is unregistered was upheld, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction and for possession alleging that the petitioner is owner of the suit property and the respondent was put into the possession of the property on the basis of agreement dated 26-1-1987 whereby possession was given to the respondent in security of loan of Rs.15,000/- which was taken by the petitioner. It was prayed that the petitioner be put into the possession. The suit was contested by the respondent on various grounds, including on the ground that the document is inadmissible in evidence as the same is unregistered. At the stage of evidence when the document was put in evidence, an objection was raised regarding admissibility of the document. By the impugned order learned Court below held that the document is inadmissible in evidence, against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that under the orders of the Court the petitioner has already paid the stamp duty with penalty. It is submitted that since the stamp duty has already been paid, therefore, even if the document is unregistered, then too, it ought to have been taken into consideration for collateral purposes. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 289 = 2009(1) MPJR 113 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that an unregistered document may be admitted in evidence but a document which is insufficiently stamped cannot be used even for collateral purposes. It was further alleged that section 33 of Stamp Act casts a duty upon every person who has authority to receive evidence and every person in-charge of a public office before whom the instrument is produced, if it appears to him that the same is not duly stamped, to impound the same. It was further alleged that section 33 of Stamp Act casts a duty upon every person who has authority to receive evidence and every person in-charge of a public office before whom the instrument is produced, if it appears to him that the same is not duly stamped, to impound the same. Sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Act lays down the procedure for undertaking the process of impounding. Section 35 provides that an instrument shall be inadmissible in evidence if the same is not duly stamped. The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The Court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms of section 35 of the Act. Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes. Further reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Narendra Prasad Gopilal Soni vs. Manju Lata, 2002(1) MPLJ 16 wherein this Court held that unregistered mortgage deed is admissible to establish nature and character of possessing of mortgagee. It was further held that the owner of the house cannot lose his title to the house because the document by which he created the mortgage is unregistered. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Sardar Amur Singh vs. Surinder Kaur, 1975 MPLJ 633 wherein Full Bench of this Court held that unregistered lease deed can be used to show nature of possession to be that of lessee. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Munni Sharma vs. Mahendra Singh, 2010(1) MPJR SN 9 wherein Divisional Bench of this Court has held that in a case where the document is insufficiently stamped, the Court may sent to Collector of Stamps for determination of stamp duty and penalty. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside. 4. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that since the document was unregistered, therefore, learned Court below committed no error in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Kamruddin Bhai vs. Mamuna Bai, 1995(11) MPWN Note-212 wherein mortgage deed of more than Rs. 100/- and was unregistered, this Court held that the document cannot be looked into for any purpose. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Smt. Mamta Awasthy vs. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, 2011(3) MPLJ 588 = AIR 2011 M. P. 166 wherein in a suit for specific performance of contract a certified partition deed was produced as evidence, this Court held that partition deed cannot be looked into for collateral purposes. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the record it is evident that document was not duly stamped, therefore, the same was impounded and sent to Collector of Stamps, who passed the order and consequently duty and penalty has been deposited by the petitioner. Now the only question is admissibility of the document on the ground that the same is unregistered. Since the submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not praying for enforcement of possession and is praying for possession on the basis of title and the case is at the stage of evidence and suit is of the year 1999 and the document in question is already marked as Ex.P/1, therefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction that the learned trial Court shall proceed with the suit and shall decide the same on merits and at that time learned Court below shall consider the impact of the document Ex.P/1 which is unregistered without being impressed with the impugned order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.