JUDGMENT KAMBLI J.- The petitioners by this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge the order dated 21-8-1971 made by the Registrar (Collector) Nagpur under sections 72 and 73 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and pray for quashing the impugned order. 2. The petitioner No.1, Smt. Thamabai widow of Dajiba Khandale owned an agricultural and house property in village Sawangi (Deoli), tahsil and district Nagpur. Petitioner No.2 Smt. Muktabai wife of Ramaji Ladke is her daughter; petitioner No.3 Ramaji is the husband of petitioner No.2. Respondent Marotrao is the husband of another daughter of petitioner No. I, who is deceased. The case of the petitioners is that on 1-5·1969 the respondent together with a number of persons forced the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 to affix their thumb impressions, and petitioner No.3 to affix his signature to a document styled as "Vyavasthapatra". This document annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition, purported to dispose of the properties of petitioner No. 1 by retaining some of them for her life time and by distribution of the rest between the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and the respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioners that this document was got prepared under threats of bodily injury to the petitioners while they were wrongfully restrained by the respondent and his associates. It is said that the reports about this incident were made by the petitioners to the police. 3. This document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Nagpur, on 1-12-1969 by the respondent. Thereupon, the Sub-Registrar noticed the petitioners to appear before him. The petitioner No.3 alone appeared on 31-1-1970. He admitted his signature on the document but he stated that the same was obtained under duress and was not acceptable to him. The Sub-Registrar refused registration of the document in respect of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 taking their absence to be a denial of execution. The Sub-Registrar, however, ordered the document to be registered partially in respect, of the petitioner No. 3. Against this order or the Sub-Registrar the respondent filed an appeal under sections 72 and 73 of the Act before the Registrar. The Registrar noticed the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. 1 and 2 taking their absence to be a denial of execution. The Sub-Registrar, however, ordered the document to be registered partially in respect, of the petitioner No. 3. Against this order or the Sub-Registrar the respondent filed an appeal under sections 72 and 73 of the Act before the Registrar. The Registrar noticed the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 appeared before the Registrar and stated that their thumb impressions were obtained by force and that the, document was not acceptable to them. The grievance of the petitioners is that even, in the face of this statement of the petitioners 1 and 2 the Registrar by his order dated 21-8-1971 directed the registration of the document by the Sub-Registrar. The petitioners have affixed a copy of the order of the Registrar as Annexure-2 to the petition. It is contended for the petitioners that the Registrar ought to have, held that the document was presented, for registration contrary to the provisions of section 25 of the Act and ought to have refused the registration of the same. It is further contended that the Sub-Registrar was also in error in partially registering the document on 31-1-1970 in respect of the petitioner No. 3 for the same reason. On these allegations, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order of the Registrar dated 21-8-1971. 4. The respondent has filed his return though there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent before us on the date of the hearing of the petition, The respondent contended in the said return that the document was executed by petitioner No. 1 voluntarily without any threat, undue influence or coercion from anybody, muchless by the respondent and other persons as alleged. He denied that the document was got prepared under threats of bodily injury to the petitioners. He denied that the presentation of the document by him before the Sub-Registrar was contrary to section 25 of the Act. It is pleaded in this return that having regard to the scheme of the Act and the limited nature of the enquiry which the registration, authority can make, the mere admission of the signature by the executant is admission of execution for the purpose of the Indian Registration Act. It is pleaded in this return that having regard to the scheme of the Act and the limited nature of the enquiry which the registration, authority can make, the mere admission of the signature by the executant is admission of execution for the purpose of the Indian Registration Act. It is therefore, denied that the registering authorities were in error in, registering the settlement deed, assuming though not admitting that the petitioners had stated that their thumb impressions and signature were obtained under duress, or that the document was not acceptable to them. The respondent, therefore, contended that the petitioners under these circumstances were not entitled to the relief sought by them in this petition. 5, Mr. Kukadey, the learned, counsel for the petitioners, did not press the contention based on section 25 of the Act that the document was presented for registration beyond the prescribed time. It appears that the document was purported to be executed on 1-5-1969 and the same was presented for registration on 1-12-1969. Even though the presentation, of the document was beyond the period of four months, the Sub-Registrar could accept the same for registration under section 25 (1) of the Act on Payment of a prescribed fine. It appears that the Registrar acted under that provision and condoning the delay accepted the document for registration, Mr. Kukdey however contended that the Registrar as well as the Sub-Registrar failed to see that the admission of the execution of the document within section 35 (i) of the Act has to be an admission of the voluntary execution of the document and as the petitioners contended that their thumb impressions and signature were obtained under duress, their statements ought to have been taken as the denial of the execution of the document by the registering authorities. According to Mr. Kukade in view of the statements made by the petitioners before the registering authorities it should have been held by them that there was no admission of the execution of the document and that the registering authorities should have refused to register the same. We are inclined to hold that there is considerable force in these submissions. 6. Before appreciating the contention raised on, behalf or the petitioners it will be convenient to advert to relevant provisions of the Act which are to be found in section 34 (1) and section 3S (1) of the Act. We are inclined to hold that there is considerable force in these submissions. 6. Before appreciating the contention raised on, behalf or the petitioners it will be convenient to advert to relevant provisions of the Act which are to be found in section 34 (1) and section 3S (1) of the Act. Section 34 (1) reads as under :- "34 (1). Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45,69,75,77,88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the, time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24,25 and 26." Section 35 (1) reads as under :- "35 (1)(a). If all the persons executing the document appear persona1iy before tile registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or (b) (c) the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61, inclusive." It is clear from the above provisions that no document can be registered under the Act unless the persons executing such document or their representatives etc. appear before registering officer within the prescribed time and further they admit the execution of the document. On a plain reading of the phrase "they all admit the execution, of the document” It is obvious that the registering authority should not only be satisfied that the party in question has signed or has affixed the thumb impression on the document but also should come to the conclusion that the signature or thumb impression had been affixed by the party after understanding the contents and tenor of the document. It is well settled that the execution of a document is not mere signing of it. It is a solemn act of the executant who must own up the recitals in the instrument and there must be clear evidence that be put his signature or thumb impression on a document after knowing the contents thereof. In other words, execution does not mean merely Signing of the document but signing by way of assent to the terms and contents thereof. In other words, execution does not mean merely Signing of the document but signing by way of assent to the terms and contents thereof. Suppose a person is made to put his signature or thumb impression on a blank piece of paper and thereafter the impugned document is scribed on the paper without his knowledge can it be said that he executed such a document? Take a case of an illiterate person who has put his thumb impression on a document under a mis-representation made to him that he was merely putting his thumb impression as an attesting witness, can it be said that he admitted the execution of the document if it transpires that his thumb impression was taken by misrepresenting to him that he was required to put the same an attesting witness. Before a person can be said to have executed the document it must appear as we have said above that he put his signature or thumb impression on the document after knowing or understanding its nature and he did so by way of assent to the terms or the contents of the document. 7. We are supported in this view by the observations of the Privy Council in Puran Chand Nahatta v. Manmotho Nath Mukherjee and others1. It has been observed there- "By section 35, Registration Act, registration i8 directed when certain persons have appeared have been duly identified, and have admitted the execution of the document propounded, and the necessary persons are "the persons executing the document." The appellant contends that in these words executing means and means only "actually signing" Their Lordships cannot accept this. A document is executed, when those who take benefits and obligations under it have put or have caused to be put their names to it. Hence the words "person executing" in the Act cannot be read merely as "person signing. They mean something more, namely the person who by a valid execution enters into obligation under the instrument." 8. The decision of the Mysore High Court in Bansettappa Laljichikkappa v. District Registrar and another2 may also be usefully referred to. One of the contentions raised in that case was that the finding recorded by the District Registrar did not satisfy the requirements of clause (a) of section 74 of the Act. Referring to that contention it was observed. The decision of the Mysore High Court in Bansettappa Laljichikkappa v. District Registrar and another2 may also be usefully referred to. One of the contentions raised in that case was that the finding recorded by the District Registrar did not satisfy the requirements of clause (a) of section 74 of the Act. Referring to that contention it was observed. "We find that there is considerable force in both the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Section 74 enjoins upon the District Registrar to hold an enquiry and came to the conclusion as to whether a document has been executed. In the present case all that the District Registrar has stated is that he was satisfied that the petitioner bad signed the sale-deed. He should have come to the conclusion that the signature bad been affixed by the petitioner after understanding the contents and the tenor of the document. Execution does not mean merely signing, but signing by way of assent to the terms of the contract of alienation embodied in the document." To the same effect are the observations in the decision of the Assam and Nagaland High Court reported in Bhutkani Nath and others v. Mt. Kamaleshwari Nath and another3. The observations are :- "Execution of a document is not mere signing of it. It is a solemn act of the executant who must own up the recitals in the instrument and there must be clear evidence that he put his signature in a document after knowing fully its contents." In Sayyaparaju Surayya v. Koduri Kondamma4, the Madras High Court had the occasion to consider the scope of section 35 of the Act and in that context, they observed: - "The admission required by the section is admission of the execution of the document. It is not enough for the person, who is the ostensible executant, to admit his signature on a paper on which, it may be, the document is ultimately engrossed. The identity or the papers on which the signature occurs is not sufficient. It is not enough for the person, who is the ostensible executant, to admit his signature on a paper on which, it may be, the document is ultimately engrossed. The identity or the papers on which the signature occurs is not sufficient. "If a man says that he signed a blank paper on the representation that it was required for presenting a petition or if a man signs a completed document on the representation that his signature or thumb impression is required as an attesting witness, that admission of the signature or thumb impression in those circumstances cannot be construed to be an admission of the execution of the document. Far from its being an admission, it is clear and unambiguous denial of the execution of the document. He must admit, in order to attract the provisions of section 35 (1), that he signed the document. The admission of execution must amount to an admission that the person admitting entered into an obligation under the instrument; in other words, that he had executed the document, signed it as a sale deed, mortgage deed or a lease deed, as the case may be." A decision of the Punjab Chief Court in Wazira v. Muhammadi5 may also be usefully referred to. That was a case where a sale-deed of certain land with Shamilat executed by an illiterate vendor was presented for registration and before the Sub-Registrar, the vendor stated that he had sold the land but without the Shamilat. The Sub-Registrar noted-the statement of vendor Wazira but registered the document. That was a case where a sale-deed of certain land with Shamilat executed by an illiterate vendor was presented for registration and before the Sub-Registrar, the vendor stated that he had sold the land but without the Shamilat. The Sub-Registrar noted-the statement of vendor Wazira but registered the document. In that context it was observed :- "The outstanding fact in the case is that Wazira as soon as the purport of the deed was explained to him, protested that he had not sold the Shamilat and there can be no doubt that this protest of his amounted as he is illiterate to a denial of execution of the document produced for registration and the Sub-Registrar would have been well advised to refuse registration.” It would thus appear that when a document had been presented before the Sub-Registrar he should not only be satisfied that the party in question had admitted that it has signed document or affixed its thumb impression thereon but should further be satisfied that the signature or the thumb impression had been affixed by the party after understanding the contents of the document, as execution does not mean merely signing but signing by way of assent to the terms embodied in the document. Now, coming to the facts of this case when the Registrar noticed the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners 1 and 2 appeared before him, and the Registrar thereafter recorded their statements. It appears that in those statements the two ladies stated that they had affixed their thumb impression on the document. They at the same time stated that that thumb impression was obtained by pressure. They made it clear that they do not admit the document. Referring to their statements, the learned Registrar observed:- "Both the ladies had admitted that the document dated 1-5-1969 bears their thumb impressions though their statement showed that their thumb impressions were taken under pressure. The enquiry made by me shows that the document dated 1-5-69 was duly executed by Smt. Thamabai and Smt. Muktabai. I order under section 75 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 that the settlement deed dated 1-5-69 shall be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Nagpur." It is pertinent to note that both the petitioners stated in clear terms that they did not admit the document. One of the petitioners, namely, petitioner No.2 stated that the document was not read out to her. One of the petitioners, namely, petitioner No.2 stated that the document was not read out to her. As against this material on the record, it appears that no statement of the respondent was recorded by the learned Registrar. Similarly, the respondent did not produce any material before the registrar in the form of statements of attesting witnesses etc. to show that the two petitioners had affixed their thumb impressions on the document without any pressure being exerted on them or that the document was read out to them before they were made to affix their thumb impressions thereon. It will thus be seen that there was no other material before the learned Registrar to rebut the say of the petitioners that their thumb impressions were obtained by force. In this connection, it would be proper to refer to one or two circumstances. The document, namely, the so called settlement-deed would show that sometime before this document saw the light of the day the petitioner No. 1 Thamabai had sold some property covered by this deed to petitioner No.2. The document recites that that sale deed has to be cancelled. The respondent appears to be the husband of the deceased daughter of the petitioner. It is likely that the respondent did not like the sale of some of her property by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2. It is on the background of this circumstance that we have to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that this document was sought to be got executed by exerting pressure on them. Another circumstances that may be noted is that this document was presented for registration not by the petitioner No.1 who was the owner of the property but by the respondent and that too after a lapse of about 7 months from the date on which the document was purported to be executed. These circumstances lend support to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they were made to affix their thumb impressions on the document by exerting pressure on them and without the document being read out to them. They have in clear terms stated that they do not admit the document. These circumstances lend support to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they were made to affix their thumb impressions on the document by exerting pressure on them and without the document being read out to them. They have in clear terms stated that they do not admit the document. In view of all this material, we are inclined to take a view that there was no material before the Registrar on the strength of which he could have reasonably come to the conclusion that the document was duly executed by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the impugned order made by the Registrar will have to be set aside. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order made by the Registrar dated 21-8-1971 directing the registration of the document by the Sub-Registrar is set aside and the order made by the Sub-Registrar refusing to register the document so far as the two petitioners, namely, Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned is confirmed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.