Judgment Das, J. 1. This is an application for the issue of a writ quashing an order passed by the District Registrar, of Shahabad on 10-7-1954. By the said order, the learned District Registrar interfered with an order of the District. Sub-Registrar and directed the District Sub-Registrar, under the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Indian Registration Act, to register a particular document in the following circumstances. 2. One Nathuni Singh alias Chandrama Singh, opposite party No. 3 before us presented a sale deed stated to have been executed by one Gopal Upadhya, petitioner, before us, for registration to the District Sub-Registrar. Execution of the document was denied by the petitioner and the learned District Sub-Registrar to whom the document was presented for registration under Section 30(1) of the Registration Act, proceeded to hold an enquiry under Section 74 of Part 12, Registration Act. On holding such an enquiry the learned District Sub-Registrar was satisfied that the document had not been executed by the present petitioner and that the document was written out by the scribe on blank sheets of paper which contained the signature of the executant from before. On this finding the learned District Sub-Registrar refused registration of the document under the provisions of Section 76, Registration Act. Against this order of the learned District Sub-Registrar, an application was made to the learned district Registrar. The application purported to be an application under Section 73, Registration Act and was made by opposite party no. 3 namely, Nathuni Singh alias Chandrama Singh. The learned District Registrar held that the learned District Sub-Registrar had no authority to hold an enquiry under Section 74 of part 12, Registration Act.The learned District Registrar, therefore, treated the order of the learned District Sub-Registrar as though it were an order under Section 71, Registration Act and accordingly he treated the application of opposite party No. 3 as an ppeal under Section 72, Registration Act, and, on that basis, lie allowed the appeal and directed the District Sub-Registrar to register the document. The learned District Registrar purported Jo make the direction under Sub-section (2) of Section 72, Registration Act. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended before us that the order of the learned District Registrar was wholly without jurisdiction, and no appeal lay to the District Registrar from the order which the learned District Sub-Registrar had passed. The learned District Registrar purported Jo make the direction under Sub-section (2) of Section 72, Registration Act. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended before us that the order of the learned District Registrar was wholly without jurisdiction, and no appeal lay to the District Registrar from the order which the learned District Sub-Registrar had passed. In my opinion, this contention urged ton behalf of the petitioner is correct and the order of the learned District Registrar dated 10-7-1954, by which the learned District Registrar interfered with the order of the learned District Sub-Registrar is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Sub-section (2), Section 7, Registration Act is in these terms : "The State Government may amalgamate with any office of a Registrar any office of a Sub-Registrar subordinate to such Registrar and may authorise any Sub-Registrar whose office has been so amalgamated to exercise and perform, in addition to his own powers and duties, all or any of the powers and duties of the Registrar to whom he is subordinate : Provided that no authorization shall enable a Sub-Registrar to hear an appeal against an order passed by himself under this Act." Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to order No. 4 at page 77 in Chapter IV, part 1, of the Bihar Registration Manual, 1946. This order shows that the offices of Sub-Registrars at the headquarters of districts have been amalgamated, with those of the Registrars under Section 7. The order further shows that such Sub-Registrars have been authorised by the State Government to perform all the duties of a Registrar, with the exception of those laid down in Sections 68 and 72. The order further states : "They may, accordingly, receive, and register documents under Sec.30(1), deal with applications under Sections 25 and 34, receive, for deposit sealed covers under Sec. 43, deliver and open such covers under sections 44 and 45, forward and receive copies and memoranda under Sec. 66, and deal with applications under Section 73 (Except when the applications are against their own Orders of refusal)." A Similar order is also traced in the Bihar and Orissa Registration Manual, 1923, the order being order no. 36 at page 182 of part IV of the said Manual. 36 at page 182 of part IV of the said Manual. It is clear, therefore, from these orders that District Sub-Registrars have been authorised by the State Government to perform all the duties of a Registrar, with the exception of those laid down in Sections 68 and 72. They have-been specifically authorised to receive and register documents under Sec.30(1) and to deal with, applications under Section 73. In the present case the application was presented to the District Sub-Registrar under Sec.30 Registration Act. Sec.30(1), Registration Act, authorises a Registrar to receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him. The next section which is relevant for our purpose is Sec.35, Registration Act. Sub-section (3) of that section, says so far as it is relevant for our purpose, that the registering officer shall refuse to register a document if the person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution. There are two provisos to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35, which it is necessary to read here. The first proviso is in these terms: "Provided that, where such officer is a Registrar, he shall follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII". The second proviso is in these terms : "Provided further that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that any Sub-Registrar named in the notification shall, in respect of documents the execution of which is denied, he deemed to be Registrar for the purposes of this sub-section and of Part XII", The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is, which argument in my opinion, is correct, that the District Sub-Registrar in this case had the powers of a Registrar and, therefore, he was entitled to follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII, Registration Act under the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has contended that the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35 covers the case of an officer who is a Registrar not by reason of the authorities under Section 7(2) of the Act but who has been appointed as Registrar from the very beginning. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has contended that the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35 covers the case of an officer who is a Registrar not by reason of the authorities under Section 7(2) of the Act but who has been appointed as Registrar from the very beginning. According to learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 a District Sub-Registrar who exercises the powers of a Registrar cannot follow, the procedure prescribed in Part XII, unless there is a special notification by name within the meaning of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35. I, must say that I was at the beginning inclined to think that the argument advanced on behalf of opposite party No. 3 was very plausible. On further consideration however, I have reached the conclusion that the argument advanced by learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 is not correct. I have already referred to the order by which the State Government have authorised District Sub-Registrars to exercise all the powers of a Registrar except those laid down in Sections 68 and 72. The authorisation order states in so many words that the District Registrars can deal with applications under Section 73 of the Act, except when the applications are against their orders of refusal. The position is further explained in paragraph 287 at page 223 of the Bihar Registration Manual, 1946. That paragraph is in these terms : "Enquiries under Section 74 of the Registration Act. (a) The scope of the expression "where such denial as aforesaid is made before a Registrar in respect of a document presented for registration to him as used in section 74 is to be explained as follows : When a Sub-Registrar at the headquarters (in his delegated capacity as Registrar) exercised his discretion in receiving for registration a document under Sec.30(1), and the executant denies its execution (or if he is dead, his representative or assign denies its execution) he is not, like a Sub-Registrar, to refuse its registration forthwith, but in compliance with the proviso to Sec.35(3) to proceed under Section 74 to enquire into the points mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of that section. (b) The Sub-Registrar at the headquarters of districts are authorised to exercise the functions of a Registrar under Sections 30, 73 and 74, except that they cannot deal with applications under Section 73, against their own orders of refusal of Registration. Therefore, when a Sub-Registrar at the headquarters of districts is acting in his delegated capacity as Registrar under, Sec.30, he must follow the procedure laid down in Section 74 when denial of execution is made before him either by the executant, if he is alive, or by his representative or assign if he is dead". 5. A similar order is to be found in paragraph 142 at page 221 of the Bihar and Orissa, Registration Manual, 1923. That earlier order of 1923 relates to a period, when the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35 had not been enacted. The second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35 was enacted by the amending Act XIII of 1926. It is difficult to understand why the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35 will not apply when the District Sub-Registrar exercises the powers of a Registrar and when the authorisation order states in clear terms that he has the power to deal with applications under Section 73, Registration Act. The second proviso which was enacted later was obviously meant for a different purpose, namely, for empowering some Sub-Registrars by name to follow the procedure laid down in Part XII in respect of documents the execution of which is denied before them, presumably, for relieving District Registrars from such additional work. The second proviso does not, however, limit the generality and scope of the first proviso, and in a case where the registering officer has the powers of a Registrar by reason of an authorisation order under Section 7, he is a Registrar within the meaning of the first proviso. 6. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is correct and the District Sub-Registrar had in this case the powers to follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII. It follows that the District Sub-Registrar had in his case the powers to hold an enquiry under Section 74, Registration Act and to pass an order under Section 76. It follows that the District Sub-Registrar had in his case the powers to hold an enquiry under Section 74, Registration Act and to pass an order under Section 76. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 76, no appeal lay from the order of the District Sub-Registrar, and the learned District Registrar was wrong in his view that the order of the District Sub-Registrar passed under Section 76, Registration Act could be treated as an order under Section 71, so as to permit an appeal to the District Registrar under Section 72 of the Act Section 72 clearly did not apply to the facts of the present case. Section 72 begins with the expression: Except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution". In the case under our consideration, the refusal was made on the ground of denial of execution, and the learned District Sub-Registrar was satisfied on enquiry that the denial was justified. That being the position, no appeal lay to the District Registrar under Section 72, Registration Act. Nor did Section 73 apply to the facts of the present case. Section 73 relates to a case when a Sub-Registrar has refused to register a document on the ground that any person by whom it purports to be executed, or his representative or assign, denies its execution. If the District Sub-Registrar had in the present case authority to follow the procedure laid down in Section 74, then, his order of refusal was an order passed under Section 76, and against such an order no appeal lay to the District Registrar. The only remedy open to the aggrieved party was by way of a suit under Section 77, Registration Act. Whether the remedy by way of such a suit is now barred or not is irrelevant for our present purpose. 7. If the learned District Registrar had no authority to deal with the application filed by opposite party No. 3 to him then the order which the learned District Registrar passed which purported to be an order under Section 72(2), Registration Act, must be clearly without jurisdiction. 8. The scheme of Part XII, Registration Act, that there is an appeal from the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution; such an appeal is provided by Section 72, Registration Act. 8. The scheme of Part XII, Registration Act, that there is an appeal from the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution; such an appeal is provided by Section 72, Registration Act. Where, however the Sub-Registrar has refused to register a document on the ground of denial of execution, an application may be filed under Section 73 to the District Registrar. 9. Where, however, the Registrar has proceeded under Section 74 and passed an order under Section 75 or Section 76, Registration Act, no appeal lies and the remedy is by way of a suit under Section 77 of the Act. In the present case, the District Sub-Registrar dealt with the document in question as a Registrar, and he had the power to follow the procedure in Part XII, Registration Act, under the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Sec.35 of they Act. That being the position, no appeal lay to the District Registrar and the order of the District Registrar dated 10-7-1954; is clearly and manifestly without, jurisdiction. 10. For the reasons given above, I would allow the application and quash the order of the learned District Registrar dated 10-7-1954. A writ will issue accordingly. It is needless to say all subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the order which was without jurisdiction must fall with the order. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, and particularly in view of the circumstances that the learned District Registrar wrongly assumed jurisdiction where he had no jurisdiction, I would direct that the parties must bear their own costs. Kanhaiya Singh, J. 11 I agree.