ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. The plaintiff has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of the Trial Court admitting an insufficiently stamped document holding that it can be looked into for collateral purpose i.e., for the purpose of contract. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of possession claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property in dispute. 2. The defendant filed the written statement contending that the property belonged to one Chikka Venkatesha Bovi who sold the northern half portion to one Somanna and he has purchased the same from Somanna under a registered sale deed 14.06.2006. In the southern half portion there is a stone roofed house measuring 12 x 24 ft. and Somanna was residing in the said house. Subsequently, the said Somanna agreeing to sell the said house in his favour, put him in possession thereof. After Somanna's death, his son Manjunatha and the wife of Chikka Venkatesha Bovi, have also agreed to sell the said property in his favour and he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same under an agreement of sale. 3. To substantiate his case, the defendant during the course of evidence, has produced an agreement of sale. Marking of the same as an exhibit in evidence was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that stamp duty ought to have been paid on it as if it were a conveyance in view of Article 5(i)(e) of the Karnataka Stamp Act as the defendant claims that the possession is delivered in his favour under the said agreement of sale. 4. The trial court has negatived the plaintiffs contention holding that an insufficiently stamped document can be looked into for collateral purpose i.e., for the purpose of contract and proceeded to mark the same as Ex. D. 10. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. There appears to be some confusion in the minds of the trial Court as to the documents that could be marked for collateral purpose. 7. D. 10. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. There appears to be some confusion in the minds of the trial Court as to the documents that could be marked for collateral purpose. 7. Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, mandates that when an unstamped or insufficiently instrument is tendered in evidence before a Civil Court and if the marking of the same is objected to by the opposite party, the court is duty bound to examine such instrument and decide whether it is duly stamped or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the instrument is not duly stamped, then it has to impound such instrument. Section 34 mandates that a document which is not duly stamped shall not be admitted in evidence. In other words, it shall not be marked as exhibit in the case. However, the proviso to Section 34 makes it clear, if the party tendering the instrument in evidence pays the stamp duty or deficit stamp duty and also ten times the duty payable as penalty or deficient portion thereof, as the case may be, then the instrument becomes admissible in evidence. Section 35 of the Stamp Act makes it clear that if no objection is taken by the opposite party at the time of marking the document which is insufficiently stamped and it is admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the same suit or other proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The opposite party thus, loses a right to challenge the judicial act of admitting such document in evidence. 8. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents, the registration of which is compulsory and it reads as under: 17. The opposite party thus, loses a right to challenge the judicial act of admitting such document in evidence. 8. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents, the registration of which is compulsory and it reads as under: 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory- (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:- (a) instruments of gift of immovable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; (e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rent reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees. (A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A. 9. The effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered is dealt under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which is as under: 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered no document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 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, 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, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 10. A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that a document which is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, if not registered, shall not affect the rights in the immovable property. In other words, it would not have the effect of transfer of any interest in an immovable property. Clause (c) of Section 49 of the Registration Act mandates that such a document shall not be received as evidence of any transaction effecting the said property or conferring of such power. Therefore, it is the registration of the document which creates interest in an immovable property in favour of the person to whom the property is transferred. Unless duly registered, no title or interest in the property is transferred in favour of the purchaser under an instrument irrespective of it being duly stamped and executed. Once the document is registered, transfer takes place and it dates back to the date of making the instrument, as per Section 47 of the Registration Act. 11. Unless duly registered, no title or interest in the property is transferred in favour of the purchaser under an instrument irrespective of it being duly stamped and executed. Once the document is registered, transfer takes place and it dates back to the date of making the instrument, as per Section 47 of the Registration Act. 11. The proviso to Section 49 is in the nature of an exception which provides for admissibility of a document which is not duly registered. Two instances where a document which is not registered could be looked into are provided therein. They are, (a) Firstly, an unregistered document, namely a "sale deed" could be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. A sale deed is a compulsorily registrable document. If a sale deed is duly executed and duly stamped, but not registered, it would not affect the property which is covered under the document. It does not create any interest in favour of the purchaser because it is not registered. When a sale deed is executed and not registered, that sale deed could be used as an agreement of sale and a suit for specific performance could be filed on the basis of the said sale deed so that if a decree is passed the seller could be compelled to execute the sale deed. (b) Secondly, unregistered documents could be looked into for any collateral transaction also. The collateral purpose would be any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property. However, the collateral purpose has a limited scope and meaning. For example, an unregistered lease deed could be looked into for ascertaining or showing that the occupation of the premises is permissive and the occupant is not a trespasser. An unregistered document which is impeached as a forgery by the alleged executant may be admitted in evidence to compare the handwriting of the alleged executant with his admitted handwriting. It could be admitted as evidence of an acknowledgement to save limitation. Normally, an unregistered partition deed produced before the court, cannot be looked into to find out whether there is any partition as stipulated in the deed. It could be admitted as evidence of an acknowledgement to save limitation. Normally, an unregistered partition deed produced before the court, cannot be looked into to find out whether there is any partition as stipulated in the deed. However, such a deed can still be looked into to find out as to who is in possession of the property and that would be a collateral purpose. 12. Therefore, marking of a document for the purpose of collateral purposes necessarily means that it is a document which is compulsorily registrable , but not registered. This has nothing to do with the stamp duty or penalty payable under the provisions of the Stamp Act. Unless a document is duly stamped or sufficient duty and penalty as provided under law is paid thereon, it can never be admitted in evidence. Of course, if the objection is not taken at the time of marking and the Court were to mark the same as an exhibit, then no objection to that effect can be taken subsequently. The Courts have to bear this distinction in mind. 13. In the instant case, the document which was sought to be produced in evidence and marked is an agreement of sale. An agreement of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the question of marking such a document for collateral purpose would not arise. The learned Trial Judge, by admitting an insufficiently stamped document in evidence for collateral purpose has acted contrary to Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order of Marking of Ex. D10 is hereby set aside. However it is open to the defendant to pay duty and penalty and then get the document marked.