JUDGMENT : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 19.07.2008 vide which application filed by the defendant petitioner under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, was rejected and the court permitted exhibiting of Patta No. 3/30 issued during the State time in Samwat 2015 (1958) and sale deeds dated 22.01.1960 and 26.07.1963. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-defendant that the suit was filed for declaration and the relief was claimed therein that the plaintiff be declared as the owner of the property. It is contended that the sale deeds dated 22.01.1960 and 26.07.1963, were not registered and as per Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, unregistered sale deed cannot be received as evidence. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-defendant that even for collateral purposes, the sale deed could not have been received as evidence, since the case of the plaintiff was for being declared as owner on the basis of these sale deeds. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that the sale-deeds were not on proper stamp and without impounding these documents, the court could not have proceeded to receive them in evidence as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AIR 2013 Raj. 17 , RLW 2013(1) Raj.151, Jagdish Prasad & Ors. v. Parshu Ram & Anr. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has contended that the court below has not committed any illegality in receiving as evidence the documents produced by the plaintiff. The patta was issued way back in the year 1958 and at that relevant time, the value of the property was less than one hundred rupees and therefore, the document was not required to be registered with regard to sale deeds dated 22.01.1960 and 26.07.1963. It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the court below has permitted the documents to be taken in evidence for a limited purpose and has also given permission to the defendant to raise objections with relation to the said document at the time of final arguments. Thus, it is contended that no prejudice is caused to the defendant. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the provisions. 7. Thus, it is contended that no prejudice is caused to the defendant. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the provisions. 7. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, any transfer, in case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, can be made only by a registered instrument. There is no dispute in the fact that in the sale-deeds dated 20.01.1960 and 26.07.1963, the value of the property was more than one hundred rupees, the same was thus required to be registered, in view of the Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. Section 17 of the Registration Act, deals with documents of which registration is compulsory. Sub-clause (b) of Section 17 of Registration Act, provides for registration of 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, or the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property. 9. Section 49 of the Registration Act, provides that any document which is required by Section 17 to be registered shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property unless the document is registered. The proviso to Section 49, however, permit receiving as evidence of an unregistered document as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 10. The clear implication of the use of word "any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument" goes to show that the collateral transaction should be one which can be effected by an unregistered instrument. 11. In the present case in hand, the plaintiff is claiming title on the basis of chain of titles right from patta No. 3/30 sale deeds dated 20.01.1960 and 26.07.1963. The sale deeds dated 20.01.1960 and 26.07.1963 cannot be permitted to be taken as evidence, since the exhibiting of the same would go to show that the plaintiff is the owner in possession, which cannot be done since, a sale deed when value of the property is more than one hundred rupees is compulsorily registrable and such document cannot be received as evidence, in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Thus, even for collateral purposes, these two sale deeds, in the facts of this case cannot be permitted to be received in evidence. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed, the order of the court permitting, receiving in evidence of the Patta No. 3/30 is upheld but as far as sale deeds dated 20.01.1960 and 26.07.1963 is concerned. The order permitting taking of the sale deed as evidence is quashed. 13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed. The stay petition also stands disposed.