ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. This petition has been filed by defendant no. 1 being aggrieved by the order dated 18-02-2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Badnawar, Dist. Dhar, by which the Court has held that the documents dated 01-11-1985 is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. 2. The facts of the case are that on 29-07-2011, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction, possession against the present petitioner on the ground that they are the owner of the disputed agricultural land being survey no. 194 area 1.682 hectors and the defendant/petitioner be restrained from interfering in their possession. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs were dispossessed, therefore, by way of amendment, they sought decree of possession. 3. The petitioner defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint contending that on 01-11-1985, father of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 and husband of respondent no. 4 Late Champalalji has sold the disputed land to the petitioner for consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and executed an agreement and handed over the possession to him. Along with written statement, the petitioner/defendant also filed counter claim. 4. The trial Court has framed issues and the evidence of the plaintiffs has been concluded and thereafter, the case was fixed for defendant's evidence. The defendant wanted to exhibit the agreement dated 01-01-1985 in his evidence. The plaintiff raised oral objection that since the said agreement is mortgage deed and is unregistered, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence. 5. Learned trial Court vide order dated 18-02-2016 has upheld the objection taken by the plaintiff and held that the said document cannot be exhibited being unregistered, hence defendant no. 1 has filed the present writ petition 6. Shri B.I. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegality while upholding the objection taken by the defendant. Agreement dated 01-11-1985 is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act. The document has been impounded and the stamp duty has been paid, therefore, the same is admissible in evidence. Agreement dated 01-11-1985 is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act. The document has been impounded and the stamp duty has been paid, therefore, the same is admissible in evidence. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of K.B. Saha and sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited reported in (2008) 8 SCC 564 on the point that unregistered document can be used in evidence for collateral purpose as provided under section 49 of the Act. He has also placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Avinash Kumar Chouhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in (2009) 2 SCC 532 and Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others reported in 2016 SAR (Civil) 226. 7. Per contra, Shri Nitin Phadke, counsel for the respondent has argued that learned trial Court has not committed any error of law while upholding objection taken by the plaintiff. The agreement dated 01-11-1985 is to be compulsorily registered under section 16 of the Registration Act and unless the same is registered, cannot be tendered into evidence. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Sri Venkoba Rao Pawar v. Sri S. Chandrashekar reported in AIR 2008 SCW 4829 on the point that collateral purpose/transaction must be independent of, or divisible from the transaction which requires registration. He has further placed reliance over the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Natthu Khan v. Komal decided on 02-12-2008 in W.P. no. 2306/2008. 8. Respondent no. 1 to 4 filed the suit initially for permanent injunction on the ground that they are registered owner of the suit property and the defendants are trying to interfere in his possession. Later on, by way of amendment, decree of possession was also sought. The present petitioner being defendant has stated that vide deed dated 01-11-1985, father of the petitioner has sold the said land to the defendant by handing over the possession and since the year 1985, they are in peaceful possession known to the plaintiffs, therefore, they are perfected the title by way of adverse possession. The present petitioner being defendant has stated that vide deed dated 01-11-1985, father of the petitioner has sold the said land to the defendant by handing over the possession and since the year 1985, they are in peaceful possession known to the plaintiffs, therefore, they are perfected the title by way of adverse possession. The defendant has also filed the counter claim that he is in peaceful possession since last 27 years, therefore, he has become the owner by way of adverse possession and accordingly, decree be granted in his favour and the plaintiff be restrained not to interfere into the peaceful possession. 9. Vide deed dated 01-11-1985, Annexure-P/4, the suit land was sold by Champalalji i.e. father of the plaintiff 1 to 3 and husband of the plaintiff no. 4 to the petitioner/defendant. It is also mentioned in the deed that the entire sale consideration has been paid and the possession has been handed over. The document sought to be exhibited in the name of sale deed, therefore, it is compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act. The contents of the deed also establishes that it is the sale deed executed between Champalalji and the defendant/s. In the aforesaid sale deed, it has also been written therein that the additional facilities is being granted to the seller that if the sale consideration is returned with interest from 01-11-1985 to 01-05-1986, then he would be entitled to take back the possession and if he fails to get release the property, then the defendant would be absolute owner, therefore, it is either sale deed or mortgage deed. Both are required to be registered because the value of transaction is more than Rs. 100/-. The document has been got impounded by the defendant. In his cross-examination, the defendant has stated that he paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to Champalalji and he has sold the land to him and handed over the possession and the sale deed was executed on 01-01-1985 and since 31 years, by virtue of sale deed, he is in peaceful possession. In his cross-examination, the defendant has stated that he paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to Champalalji and he has sold the land to him and handed over the possession and the sale deed was executed on 01-01-1985 and since 31 years, by virtue of sale deed, he is in peaceful possession. In his examination-in-chief in the Court, he has deposed that he has purchased the suit land from Champalalji and tendered the said deed in evidence for marking as Exhibit, therefore, from the statement of the defendant and his conduct clearly establishes that he wanted to get this deed exhibited as sale deed to establish sale and for no other purpose. In the entire written statement as well as in the counter claim, he has stated that he has purchased the property by deed dated 01-11-1985 and sought the decree of declaration that he is owner and entitled to get mutation in his favour. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another (supra) has held that section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and section 49 of the Registration Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document in respect of an immovable property and deals with the documents that are required to be registered under section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor, but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with respect to the terms of the documents and the admissibility of the document. In the suit for declaration of title, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purposes i.e. to prove his possession, payment of sale consideration and nature of possession, but not for primary purpose i.e. sale between the plaintiff and defendant. As stated above, the defendant has clearly set out his defence and the claim in the written statement stating that he has purchased the property by deed dated 01-01-1985 and he wanted to exhibit as sale deed to get the decree of title. The defendant has also placed reliance over the judgment cited by the respondent in the case of K.B. Saha and others (supra). 11. The defendant has also placed reliance over the judgment cited by the respondent in the case of K.B. Saha and others (supra). 11. The Apex Court in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited (supra) has laid down the principle in respect of the collateral purpose. Para 34 of the judgment is reproduced below : 34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to here-in-above, it is evident that :- 1. A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under section 49 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. 12. According to the above judgment, a collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which required registration by the law. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality committed by the learned trial Court upholding the objection taken by the plaintiff. The document dated 01-11-1985 cannot be exhibited in evidence for want of registration. 14. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed.