( 1 ) THE defendant has filed this second appeal against the order of the third Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, in R. A. 58 of 1968, affirming the judgment and decree passed by IV Addl. 1st Munsiff, Bangalore, in O. S. 1706 of 1964, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit under S. 77 of the Indian Registration act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a decree directing the defendant to get th,e sale-deed dt. 12-10-1961 registered in the office of the Sub- registrar, Bangalore, City South, if it is presented within 30 days after the passing of the decree by the Munsiff. ( 3 ) IN brief, the plaintiff's case is that the defendant who was the owner cf the suit schedule property agreed on 23-4-1961 to sell the same to him for a consideration of Rs. 6000 and executed, the agreement to sell in fayour of him. According to the agreement, the plaintiff had to discharge a mortgage effected by the defendant in respect of the suit property in favour of shri Hakim Syed Abbas for Rs. 3,000 and a sum of Rs. 1,500 was paid in advance on 23-4-1961. In pursuance of this agreement to sell, the defendant executed a sale-deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff on 12-10-1961. A sum of Rs. 1,500 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in the presence of the attestors. The defendant also delivered actual possession of the, suit premises to the plaintiff in pursuance of the sale-deed. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant failed to get the sale-deed registered. The plaintiff presented the document on 1-2-1962 before the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore City south The Sub-Registrar issued a notice to the defendant to appear before him and have the document registered. The defendant appeared before the Sub-Registrar after due date on 13-2-1962. While admitting the execution of the document, the defendant appears to have pleaded want. of consideration and alteration of the document and refused to have it registered. The Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the District Registrar to condone the delay in the appearance of the executant. As the grounds required for the condonation of delay were not satisfactorily established, the registrar refused to register the document under s. 34 of the Act. of consideration and alteration of the document and refused to have it registered. The Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the District Registrar to condone the delay in the appearance of the executant. As the grounds required for the condonation of delay were not satisfactorily established, the registrar refused to register the document under s. 34 of the Act. The plaintiff filed an appeal under S. 72 of the Act before the District registrar, Bangalore. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the District Registrar. Ultimately, the registering authority refused to register the sale-deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has now filed this suit for relief prayed for in the plaint under S. 77 of the Act. ( 4 ) THE defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he did not receive the sum of Rs. 1,500 in the presence of the attestors and that material portion of the document had been forged and fabricated. He has denied the delivery of possession of the premises to the plaintiff and the payment of the Municipal taxes by the plaintiff. He has pleaded that thje sub-Registrar has rightly refused to register the document as the same was forged one. He has also pleaded that the suit does not strictly come within the purview of Sec. 77 of the Act and therefore the suit is not maintainable. ( 5 ) ON these pleadings, the trial Court framed a number of issues. The relevant issues for the disposal of this appeal are at issues No. 7 and 8 which read : (7) Whether the suit is not maintainable in law? (8) Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief sought for" ( 6 ) THE learned Munsiff answered the 7th issue against the defendant and the 8th issue in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the munsiff before the Third Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore. The learned Civil Judge, on a cons-deration of the entire evidence and bearing in mind the position of law relating to the maintainability of the suit under S. 77 of the Act, has confirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff in respect of those issues and dismissed the appeal. As already stated, aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. ( 7 ) MR. As already stated, aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. ( 7 ) MR. D. V. Padmanabhaiah, learned Advocate for the defendant mainly contended that the suit under S. 77 of the Act is not maintainable as the facts and circumstances of this case do not fall within the purview of the provisions of S. 77 of the Act. He urged that the defendant did not appear before the Sub-Registrar either to deny or admit the execution of the document. Therefore, he contended that his non-appearance before the Sub-Registrar amounted to denial of the execution, which does not fall within the purview of the S. 72 to maintain a suit under the provisions of S. 77 of the Act. Secondly, he contended that the phraseology used in s. 72 of the Act is different from the phraseology used in S. 77 of the Act. He pointed out that the words used in S. 72 are 'refusing to admit a document to registration' while in S. 77 of the Act, the words used are 'registrar refused to order the document to be registered'. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention of Mr. Padmanabhaiah is that the non- appearance of the defendant before the Sub-Registrar amounted to denial of execution and that 'refusing to admit a document to registration' is different from 'refusing to order the document to be registered' and on both the grounds according to him, the suit is not maintainable under section 77 (1) of the Act. ( 8 ) MR. H R. Venkataramanaiah learned Advocate for the plaintiff, sought to support the findings of the first appellate Court and contended that the ron-appearance of the defendant before the Sub-Registrar to admit or deny the execution of the document for registration did not in law amount to denial of the execution He nextly contended that the words 'refusing to admit the document to registration' found in S. 72 and 'the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered' found in s. 77 of the Act have the same meaning without any difference. ( 9 ) THERE is no force in the contentions raised by Mr. Padmanabiah on behalf of the defendant while I see a great deal of force in the contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) THERE is no force in the contentions raised by Mr. Padmanabiah on behalf of the defendant while I see a great deal of force in the contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiff. ( 10 ) SECTION 72 (1) lays down :" Except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (whether the registration of such document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order;. . . . . . "from the provisions of S. 72 of the Act. it is clear that no appeal shall be prefsrred under S. 72 (1) on the ground of denial of execution, but in all other cases, the executee can prefer an appeal as provided in S. 72 (1) of the Act. ( 11 ) S. 73 (1) of the Act provides that where the executant denies its execution, an executee should file an application to the Registrar where the Sub-Registrar refuses to register on the ground of denial of execution relying upon the provisions of this Section, Mr. Padmanabiah contended that since the defendant having appeared before the Sub-Registrar after the due date denied the execution of the document, the remedy open to the plaintiff was to file an application as required under S. 73 of the Act and not an appeal under S. 72 (1) of the Act. He further urged that the plaintiff having failed to make an application under S. 73 (1) of the Act and having wrongly preferred an appeal against the order of the sub-Registrar refusing to register the document in question under Section 72 (1), the suit filed by the plaintiff under S. 77 (1) is not maintainable. The argument of Mr. Padmanaiab firstly assumes that the defendant had appeared before the Sub-Registrar within the due date allowed under s. 23 of the Act and denial of the execution of the document. Further, it also ignores the position that the Sub-Register had power to record the statement of the defendant when the defendant appeared before the due date. The argument of Mr. Padmanaiab firstly assumes that the defendant had appeared before the Sub-Registrar within the due date allowed under s. 23 of the Act and denial of the execution of the document. Further, it also ignores the position that the Sub-Register had power to record the statement of the defendant when the defendant appeared before the due date. It is not disputed that the plaintiff presented the document for registration within four months from the date of the execution as required under s. 23 of the Act. It is also not disputed that the defendant appeared four months thereafter on 13-12-1962 and that he failed to make an applicatoin for condonation of delay as required under the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of S. 34 of the Act. If the defendant had filed an application for condonation of delay and got the delay condoned and after payment of the penalty prescribed under that section and had made a, statement before the Sub- registrar there would have been some force in the contention of Mr. Pad- manabiah that the defendant made the statement denying the execution of the document. When the defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of law, whatever statement he made subsequent to the date, cannot have any legal effect. Therefore, it must be taken that as matters stood before the due date, there was no denial of the execution by the defendant before the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the consequent refusal to register the document by the Sub-Registrar must be said to be on a ground other than the denial of execution. Therefore, it is a case which clearly falls within the provisions of S. 72 (1) of the Act. ( 12 ) THERE is another circumstance pointed out by Mr. Venkataramaniah which supports the contention that the defendant had not denied the execution of the sale-deed at any stage in the proceedings before the registering authority. He relied upon the endorsement made by the Sub- registrar on the original of Ext. P. 3 wherein the Sub-Registrar has endorsed that the executant while admitting the execuion of the document refused to sign on the endorsement on the plea of want of consideration. This endorsement clearly establishes that there is no denial of the execution of the document as required under 8. 72 (1) of the Act. P. 3 wherein the Sub-Registrar has endorsed that the executant while admitting the execuion of the document refused to sign on the endorsement on the plea of want of consideration. This endorsement clearly establishes that there is no denial of the execution of the document as required under 8. 72 (1) of the Act. Further, the orders passed by the Registrar and also the Sub-Registrar in the proceedings pending before them, clearly show that the registration was refused. In these circumstances, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the registration was refused on the ground of denial of the execution of the document, but on the ground other than the denial of the execution -of the document, namely, that the defendant did not appear before the sub-Registrar within the time stipulated by law and further that he did not lake action to get the delay condened as required under S. 34 (4) of the act to appear before the Sub-Registrar either to deny or to admit the execution of the sale-deed. ( 13 ) MR. Venkataramaniah relied upon two decisions of the Madras high Court in support of his contention that where the defendant does not dery the execution of the document and state that there is want of Consideration, such. a case falls within the purview of S. 72 (1) of the Act. In mamkka Mudaliar v. Mohammad Zavuddin Saheb 48 Mad. L. J. 221. , it has been held as follows :"the plaintiff presented ' a document executed in his favour before a Sub-Registrar for registration within four months of the date of its execution. The Sub-Registrar ordered notice to the executant who appeared beyond the four months. The Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the Registrar under S. 34 (4) of the Registration Act, forwarding the document also to the Registrar. The Registrar passed an order "registration refused" and gave reasons in which he held that the delay of the parties in appearing beyond four months did not 'come under urgent necessity or unavoidable accident. " The document was then returned to the Sub-Registrar, who furnished to the plaintiff a copy of the order. The Sub-Registrar did not follow up the order of the Registrar by passing an ord,er "registration refused. " The document was then returned to the Sub-Registrar, who furnished to the plaintiff a copy of the order. The Sub-Registrar did not follow up the order of the Registrar by passing an ord,er "registration refused. "in a, suit instituted by the plaintiff to obtain registration of the document under S. 77 of the Registration Act, held, that the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiff's remedy was not merely to appeal against the order of the Sub-Registrar under S. 72, or to apply to the district Registrar under S. 73 of the Act. The order passed by the Registrar fell under S. 76 (a) of the Act, which is wide enough to cover all orders of the Registrar refusing registration whether such orders are passed on documents presented to him in the first instance or other-wise. Procedure proper to be followed by the Registrar on a matter being referred to him is under S. 34 (4) and proviso to Section 34 (1) of the Act. " ( 14 ) IN another decision of the same the High Court in Ranjithmmal v. Sowbagyathammal AIR 1962 Mad. 421 . Kailasam, J. has observed in paras 4, 5 and 6 as follows: provisions of S. 34 of the Regn. Act are subject to S. 77 which nowhere provides for time within which the parties should appear to admit execution. In order to maintain a suit under S. 77 all that is required is that there must be a refusal to register by the Sub-Registrar, an appeal within time to the Registrar, a refusal by the Registrar and a suit filed in the Civil Court within one month from the order of the Registrar refusing registration. Where all these conditions are satisfied, the registering authority cannot refuse to register the documents. Where a document was presented for registration within four months of its execution, and the executant admitted its execution after expiry of four months but refused to register it on the ground that he had not received the consideration and the Sub-Registrar, and oil appeal, the Disrtict Registrar refused to register it, held that the order of the registering authority refusing to register was erroneous. The Registrar was bound to register. " i am in respcetful agreement with the ratio of these decisions. The Registrar was bound to register. " i am in respcetful agreement with the ratio of these decisions. It is clear from the decision cited above, facts of which are more or less similar to the facts in the instant case, that the plaintiff was entitled to prefer an appeal to the Registrar against the order passed by the Sub-Registrar. Further, the provisoins of S. 34 of the Act are subject to the provisions of s. 77 of the Act, and, therefore, the plaintiff, in order to maintain a suit under S. 77 is required to show that there is a refusal by the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar and the suit was filed within one month from the date of the order of the Registrar refusing to register. In the instant case, the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to register the document, the Registrar dismissed the appeal and ordered refusal to register the document, and a suit was filed within one month from the date of the order passed by the Registrar. Therefore, the facts as proved in this suit have satisfied the requirements of the provisions of s. 77 of the Act. In this view of the matter also, the suit is maintainable. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Padmanabiah that the plaintiff should have filed an application under the provisions of S. 73 of the act and not an appeal under S. 72 (1) of the Act is devoid of force. ( 15 ) NOW, turning to the contention that the phraseology used in ss. 72 and 77 of the Act is synonymous and that they cover two different types of cases, the answer is found in the decision in Maneklal Mansukhabai v. Kasturbhai Manibhai (3 ). Murphy J. at page 368 column No. 1 has observed as follows :" The ruling in this case does not make the distinction in question between "accepting for registration," and "refusing to register,"and the argument against the applicant's case, as put before us in appeal, is based on this ruling. As against it we have been referred to fatechand Anandram v. Umaji (3); Gangadar v. Sambasiva (4); and hoosein Abdul Rehman and Co. As against it we have been referred to fatechand Anandram v. Umaji (3); Gangadar v. Sambasiva (4); and hoosein Abdul Rehman and Co. v Lachmichcad (2), where the ruling in Ganyava v. Sayava (1) has been distinguished, and its authority has been doubted It seems to me that it is not possible, on the construction of the relevant sections of this Act, really to draw a sharp distinction between 'refusal to accept for registration" and "a refusal to register". " i am in respectful agreement with the observations made by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court. In view of the law laid down in the said decision, the second contention of Mr. Padmanabiah also fails. ( 16 ) NO other error of law has been raised in this appeal. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated above all the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant fail. The appeal is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, each party to bear his own costs of this Court. --- *** --- .