JUDGMENT : 1. The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 17.08.2017 in OS No.21 of 2014, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in OS No.21/2014, for specific performance based on agreement sale dated 30.11.2007, directing the 1st defendant to execute sale deed over the suit schedule property or in the alternative refund an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was given as hand loan to the mother of the 1st defendant which was adjusted towards the part sale consideration and for damages. The petitioners filed a written statement in the said suit and when the matter is posted for trial, the respondent/plaintiffs sought to mark agreement of sale dated 30.11.2007, the petitioners/defendants raised an objection stating that the said document cannot be marked for want of stamp duty and registration. 3. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court by order dated 17.08.2017, over-ruled the objection raised by the petitioners by according permission to mark the document in evidence. Questioning the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Counsel for the respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the document i.e., the agreement of sale dated 30.11.2007, is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty, penalty and registration. It is the further case of the petitioners that the disputed document is not a mere agreement of sale but on a perusal of the recitals therein show that there are several other aspects involved inasmuch as the plaintiff as vendee under the said document did not pay any amount as advance. It is further contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff contributed certain amount while constructing the building in dispute on behalf of late Smt. Sathyavati, who was none other than the mother of the 1st defendant. When the said amount was demanded to repay, she expressed her inability to pay the said amount, thereby the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to receive rents towards the amount payable by her. 7. It is further case of the petitioners that to discharge the amount due to the plaintiff, the said Smt. Satyavathi wanted to sell the suit schedule property and agreed to adjust the amount due towards part sale consideration as advance. 7. It is further case of the petitioners that to discharge the amount due to the plaintiff, the said Smt. Satyavathi wanted to sell the suit schedule property and agreed to adjust the amount due towards part sale consideration as advance. It is further contended that the acknowledgement of obligation under the above document comes within the definition of bond as defined under Section 2(10) of Indian Stamp Act and the same is required to be stamped sufficiently as per the said Act. It is also the contention of the petitioners that an interest is created in the immovable property in favour of the plaintiff to collect rents therefore unless the stamp duty is paid and the document is registered, the same is not admissible in evidence. 8. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that on perusal of the recitals in the agreement of sale, it is clear that the document by itself does not create any right over the immovable property and possession of the suit schedule property remains with the petitioners/defendants. It is further contended that, it is categorically stated in the document that the possession will be delivered to the respondent/plaintiff at the time of registration. As such, the Counsel for the respondent contends that since it is only the agreement of sale without delivery of possession, the disputed document can be marked in evidence. 9. For proper appreciation of the case on hand Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, reads as follows : 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.-(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No.XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely : ............. (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to,-- ........... (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to,-- ........... (v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1-A) except an agreement of sale as mentioned in clause (g) of sub-section (1) not in itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, tide or interest; or 6. This is a general provision making the agreements of sales compulsorily registrable, but certain exceptions have been provided under the Act itself. Clause (2) of Section 17 indicated the nature of documents that are exempted from registration. Section 17(2)(v) makes the position clear that any document other than the documents specified in sub-section 1-A except an agreement of sale as mentioned in clause (g) of sub-section (1) not in itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of value of Rs.100/- and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest. 10. Further, Section 49 of the Act reads as follows : 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered shall,- (i) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (ii) confer any power to adopt, or (iii) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered : Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 8. The proviso to Section 49 makes the wording of the section very clear that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. 11. 8. The proviso to Section 49 makes the wording of the section very clear that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. 11. No doubt, the document in dispute covers several aspects of contribution of amount by respondent/plaintiff in favor of the mother of the 1st petitioner, collection of rents by the plaintiff etc., as contended by the petitioners, nevertheless the recitals of the document clearly go to show that the possession of the suit schedule property is not delivered to the respondent/plaintiff inasmuch as in clear and categorical terms it is mentioned therein that the possession of the suit schedule property will be delivered to the respondent/plaintiff at the time of registration of the property. Meaning thereby the possession remains with the petitioners and the respondent/ plaintiff is only allowed to collect rents. 12. Further an unregistered document may be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance and the admissibility or otherwise of the document can be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. Further, insofar as the petitioners contention that the document has to be treated as bond is concerned, under the agreement of sale the suit schedule property is agreed to be transferred upon payment of balance sale consideration and when the document mentions transfer of rights between the parties, the same cannot be termed as bond, as such, there are no merits in the revision petition. 13. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.