ORDER : B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J. The revision petitioner who maintained the suit for declaration and consequential permanent injunction in O.S No. 1224 of 2007 on the file of the VI Addl. Senior Civil Judges Court, Visakhapatnam against the three defendants since, as can be seen from the submission of both sides, sought for amendment of the plaint, from consequential injunction to the relief of possession setting up title by adverse possession, such amendment petition is still pending and thereby that is not of any further relevancy here for the purpose of revision. While so, in the course of trial, when plaintiff sought for exhibiting an unregistered sale deed dated 09.05.1974 which was undisputedly duly impounded before the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam vide application of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, dated 25.02.2015 of compliance of the order of impounding by District Registrar, by payment of the amount and therefrom the question of again considering the sufficiency of stamp duty before the Court does not arise once certificate is issued by the District Registrar of duly impounded the document that is since final, as per the Sections 38 to 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act (for short, the Act), for doctrine of part performance or for collateral purpose u/sec. 49 of the Act, from the objection raised by the defendants as inadmissible, upheld the objection vide order dated 18.12.2015 and it is impugning the same, the plaintiff maintained the revision. 2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance on two expressions in K. Ramamurthy v. C. Surendranath Reddy and M. Manjula v. Gajam Chandrayya that were referred in the order of the lower Court in paras-4 and 5 which are in relation to unregistered sale agreement compulsory registerable in a suit for permanent injunction and declaration with consequential relief of injunction held admissible either for part performance of the contract or as to nature of possession. It is the submission on behalf of revision petitioner therefrom that the trial Court went wrong in not permitting to exhibit the unregistered sale deed for collateral purpose. 3. It is the submission on behalf of revision petitioner therefrom that the trial Court went wrong in not permitting to exhibit the unregistered sale deed for collateral purpose. 3. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents saying the order of the lower Court holds good and the character of possession cannot be considered as collateral purpose and the law is very clearly laid down by the Apex Court in K.B Saha and sons (P) Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd. that was reiterated with approval by a subsequent expression of the Apex Court in S. Kalavathy v. V.R Somasundaram particularly at para-13 saying, the purpose culled out from said expression of Shah at para-34 as: 1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc., any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5. 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 an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. and thereby sought for dismissal of the revision. 4. Heard and perused the material on record and the provisions and propositions referred supra. 5. and thereby sought for dismissal of the revision. 4. Heard and perused the material on record and the provisions and propositions referred supra. 5. Undisputedly, Section 17 of the Act, speaks of what documents are compulsorily registerable and 18 of the Act speaks of what documents registration is optional and Section 49 speaks as an exception to Section 17 of the Act, that an unregistered document, which compulsorily required to be registered, though cannot be looked into, however from the proviso, the three exceptions carved out are in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale based on unregistered document even and the other prior to the amendment by the Central Legislation under Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f 24.09.2001 deleting that portion from Section 49 of the Act, equally under 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 of though not registered is admissible for doctrine of part performance and thereby after that amended date with prospective operation even in a suit for doctrine of part performance, registration is compulsory and the other exception is for collateral purpose. 6. Once Section 49 of the Act speaks a document compulsorily registerable even not registered can be admitted for collateral purpose and once that is sought, the lower Court went wrong in rejecting the request. It is, in fact, premature even to say what is collateral purpose but for left open to decide ultimately as to what is collateral purpose by marking subject to objection on admissibility. It is because character of possession from the transaction of sale or gift or lease or the like though cannot be let in from the contents of the document as if a collateral purpose from what is laid in K.B Shah and reiterated in S. Kaladevi supra; however when character of possession is different from collateral purpose to show only possession without going into the contents of the documents as to character of possession, it can be admitted for collateral purpose to show simply in possession. 7. Accordingly and in the result, the revision is allowed for marking the document i.e unregistered sale deed dated 09.05.1974 for collateral purpose subject to any objection, however as to relevancy, admissibility and proof and what is collateral purpose, ultimately to decide by the Court with reference to the principles laid down in the above expressions particularly of K.B Shah supra. 8. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this revision, shall stand closed. No order as to costs in the revision.