ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. This petition is filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2016 by which his objection taken during evidence of plaintiff has been rejected. 2. Respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration & possession in respect of agricultural land on various survey numbers. The suit was filed on the ground that plaintiff has mortgaged the suit land with the defendants as security for taking loan of Rs.65,000/- and after repayment of loan in the month of February, 2004 the defendants are not handing over possession of the suit land back to them. 3. After notice defendants/petitioners appeared before the trial Court and filed the written statement stating that the plaintiffs have agreed to sell the suit land for a total consideration of Rs.90,000/- and part payment was made, agreement to sell was executed in their favour and the possession was handed over. The transaction of loan and mortgage between the plaintiff and the defendant were specifically denied. By way of counter claim defendants sought the relief of specific performance. 4. After framing the issues evidence of the plaintiffs started and during cross examination of the plaintiff defendants put the agreement dated 10.06.2002 before the witness and tried to get the said agreement to sell marked as exhibit. Such a conduct was objected by the plaintiffs that the said document cannot be taken on record and marked as exhibit as the same was not registered and properly stamped. Learned trial Court has accepted the objection taken by the plaintiff by the impugned order, hence the present petition. 5. Shri Ayushman Choudhary, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said document can be looked into for collateral purpose in spite of being unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The trial Court should have considered the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act especially the proviso wherein in a suit for specific performance the unregistered documents can be looked into for collateral purpose. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. Reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2569 and Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1383. 6. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. Reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2569 and Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1383. 6. In reply Shri Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that even unregistered document can be looked into but it should have been sufficiently and properly stamped. He has placed reliance over the decisions in the case of Atmaram s/o Ramchandra Mahajan and another v. Anil Kumar s/o Shikharchand Mahajan reported in 2011 (3) MPLJ 407 . 7. During cross examination of the plaintiffs defendants tried to get exhibited the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2002 which is admittedly neither registered nor sufficiently stamped. Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction that he be declared as land owner of agricultural land and the defendant be directed to hand over possession. By way of counter claim defendants sought the relief of specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2002 which was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.50/-. 8. In the present case there is a controversy about the non registration as well as insufficiently stamped agreement dated 10.06.2002. So far as the registration of agreement to sell is concerned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akshay Doogad v. State of M.P and others reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ 156 has held that the said agreement can be looked into for limited collateral purpose. Para-9 of the said judgment is reproduced below: 9. The Supreme Court has opined that when an unregistered document is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to section 49 of the Act of 1908. The Court went to observe that admission of an unregistered sale deed by the Court in such cases would be in consonance with the proviso appended to section 49 of the Act of 1908. The Court went to observe that admission of an unregistered sale deed by the Court in such cases would be in consonance with the proviso appended to section 49 of the Act of 1908. Considering this decision, the view taken by the trial Court on the issue under consideration will have to be overturned. The reason why the trial Court has not adverted to this Supreme Court decision has remained unexplained. We need not dilate on that matter as we have no hesitation in accepting the argument of the appellant that the sole basis on which the relief claimed by the appellant in the suit for specific performance has been rejected cannot be countenanced. 9. Trial Court has only directed that the said agreement to sell cannot be marked as exhibit unless the same is impounded under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Admittedly, the agreement to sell dated 10.06.2002 contains a recital that possession has been handed over to the defendants, therefore, it is a "conveyance " as provided under Article 23 of Schedule-IA chargeable with the duty of seven and half percent of market value of the property and penalty maximum up to ten times. This Court in the case of Umesh Kumar v. Rajaram reported in 2010 (2) MPLJ 104 and Atmaram v. Anil Kumar (supra) has specifically held that party is required to pay the duty as well as penalty in accordance with sections 33, 35 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act over the agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance when the possession was handed over at the time of execution of agreement. In view of the above discussion, impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not suffer from any procedural infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.