9. The Respondents submit that the Apex Court 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 ff and defendant, not for primary purpose ie. sale between the pl 10. The Respondent further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered a few pointers which state that - A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 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. ‘A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 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 crest in immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, 11. 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. Hence, 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*. ® Rajangam ler vs. Rajangam ler *Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another 5 M/S K.B.Saha And Sons Pvt, Ltd vs M/S Development Consultant Ltd 612. The Respondent strongly submits that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded®, ° chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy Vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Vankat Reddy , AIR 1969 A.P. (242) 7VERIFICATIO! I, Nishikanta Mondal, age: 59, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 1234/ Greenville, Rajouri Nagar, Mumbai. do hereby state that whatever is stated in foregoing Para Nos. | to 12 of the Affidavit in Reply is true to my own knowledge and belief. Solemlenly declared at Mumbai ) Dated __day of April, 2019. Advocate for Respondent Respondent