ORDER : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. Present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.09.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D) Shri. Dugngargarh, District Bikaner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the issue involved in the present is squarely covered against the petitioner vide judgment dated 26.07.2017 rendered by this Court in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 7815/2016 (Om Prakash v. Madan Lal), operative portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: “A perusal of the proviso to Section 49 shows that a document even without registration can be used for collateral purposes, on which, learned counsel for the respondents, has heavily relied. The position of law that a document can be used for collateral purposes cannot be disputed, but the bone of contention or the moot question is; as to whether the purpose, for which the document in question is being sought to be used, can at all be considered as a collateral purpose? The defendant's sole case is edificed on the sale deeds dated 27.05.1993 and 05.08.2000, upon which he has projected his claim that possession and proprietorship of the property in question has vested in him. The moment, the defendant seeks to rely upon these documents as a documents of title qua the disputed property and claim ownership, the documents fall foul to Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. However, the defendant may assert or prove his position, based on these documents and contend that he has been enjoying possession of the property, as the same would fall in the sweep of collateral purpose, which is permitted under proviso to Sectiion 49 of the Registration Act. The learned Trial Court has clearly erred in defining rather expanding the scope of collateral purpose, by using the expression, “Prior Transfer and Possession”. The learned Trial Court has clearly erred in defining rather expanding the scope of collateral purpose, by using the expression, “Prior Transfer and Possession”. The relevant part of order is as under:— ^^fdUrq bl nLrkost esa oknxzLr lEifŸk ls tqM+h iwoZorhZ ?kVuk ,oa vUrj.k ds mYys[k dk rRo lek;ksftr gksus ls oknxzLr lEifr ds fgLls fo'ks"k ds iwoZorhZ vUrj.k ,oa vkf/kiR; ds Lo:i ij fopkj fd;s tkus dh gn rd mDr nLrkost dks ek= lhfer ,ao lgikf"oZd iz;kstu (Limited and Collateral Purpose) gsrq bl LRkj ij iznf'kr fd;s tkus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr gksrk gSA^^ The order impugned to the extent of permitting the document to be used as evidence for proving prior transfer is, therefore, clearly illegal and contrary to Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, inasmuch as the moment the document is relied upon for the purpose of proving transfer of any kind prior, present or future, the requirement of Registration is a precursor. As soon as the defendant seeks to show his title or even predecessor's title, such unregistered document is hit by the provision of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and the same cannot be admitted in evidence. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court is quashed and set aside, the learned Trial Court is directed to impound the document and send the same for determination of proper stamp duty, in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. However, since the documents are not registered, it is clarified that they can be used for the collateral purpose of showing factum and the nature of possession only and not otherwise. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.” 3. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and following the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in (2009) 2 SCC 532 , the writ petition is dismissed.