Shahmiri, J.@mdashThis is a revision application directed against an order of the Second Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, by which an unregistered
rent deed dated 30th Chet 2000 produced on behalf of the defendants by one Mst. Gilli, a witness for the defendants, has been held to be
inadmissible in evidence.
2. We have heard counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs-respondents' suit against the defendants was for permanent injunction restraining them from
in any way interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs in the property, house and land, specified in the plaint, of which the plaintiffs claimed to be the
owners by virtue of the sale deed dated 13th Maghar 2007 (registered on 15th Maghar 2007) executed in their favour by Abdul Aziz, defendant
6. The rent deed in question was sought to be put in on behalf of the defendants to show that Gulam Modh., plaintiff, had admitted that the
property specified in the rent, deed belonged to Mst. Gilli one of the defendant's witnesses.
The trial Court has held that the purpose for which the document is sought to be received in evidence by the defendant-appellant cannot be
described as collateral as according to him it is not independent or divisible from the transaction ""to effect which the law requires registration""? and
it must be a transaction not by itself required to be effected by a registered document, as one creating, assigning, alienating etc. any rights, title or
interest in Immovable property.
There is no quarrel with the propositions enunciated by the trial Court but it appears to us that the learned Munsiff has not properly construed the
purpose for which the document is sought to be received in evidence by the appellant. His real purpose is to show the nature of the possession of
the plaintiffs and to indicate that one of the plaintiffs had clearly admitted that he was not the owner of the property in question.
In our view this purpose is certainly a collateral one. As stated in Note 14 to Section 49, Registration Act by Chitaley proof as to the nature or
character of a person's possession is really proof of a transaction showing in what character a person has come upon the land. Such a transaction
is really a collateral one which, by itself does not require to be effected by a registered deed. An unregistered document is, therefore, held to be
admissible as evidence of the nature or character of a person's possession.
There is ample authority for the proposition that such unregistered documents can be used for determining the nature of the claimant's possession
vide-'Kartar Singh v. Mehr Nishan AIR 1934 Lah 885 21) (A),-'Qadar Bakhsh v. Mangha Mal AIR 1923 Lah 495 10) (B); and Mengh Raj v.
Nand Lal AIR 1939 Lah 558 560 26) (C). Furthermore, their Lordships of the Board of Judicial Advisers have also in 5 J & KLR 153 (D) held
that if a document is in-admissible in evidence for want of registration for establishment of the plaintiff's title, it can yet be looked into for the
collateral purpose of ascertaining the plaintiff's assertion which has accompanied his possession.
It was further observed by the Hon'ble Board that in such cases the document comes in aid of the party's case as showing not what right it
conferred but his assertion as regards the character of his possession. The document in the present case can, therefore, be looked into for the
purpose of showing the 'plaintiff's assertion as regards the character of his possession. Under these circumstances we accept this revision
application and hold that the rent deed in question can be received in evidence for the aforesaid collateral purpose. The parties will bear their own
costs.
