JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 3rd February, 1966 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Fatehpur setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1965 passed by the Munsif Fatehpur in suit No. 222 of 1964. 2. The fact of the case out of which this appeal has arisen can briefly be stated as follows : One Mohan had two sons viz. Pitna plaintiff-appellant and Jageshwar defendant-respondent No. 3. Jageshwar had two sons Bhola respondent No. 1 and Gopal respondent No. 2. On the 30th of November, 1961 Mohan executed a gift-deed in respect of his cultivatory plots in favour of Gopal and Bhola respondents, Mohan died on 12th January, 1962 and thereafter Jageshwar made an application for mutation of the names of respondents 1 and 2 over the fields of Mohan. Pitna than filed a suit for cancellation of the gift-deed on the ground that it was the result of fraud practised by Jageshwar, defendant-respondent No. 3 on Mohan deceased. 3. The suit was resisted by the respondents mainly on two grounds viz., (1) The plaintiff-appellant was not the son of Mohan ; and (2) the gift-deed was executed by Mohan out of his own free will and that it was not the result of any fraud. 4. The trial court decided both the points in favour of the appellant and in the result, decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed an appeal. The learned Additional Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, concurred with the trial court on the first point, but he disagreed with the trial court on the second point and held that the gift-deed was executed by Mohan of his own free will and that it was not the result of any fraud practised on him by respondent No. 3. In the result, the lower court of appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and dismissed the suit. Feeling dissatisfied with it the plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court. 5. The question whether the gift-deed dated 30th November, 1961 was executed by Mohan out of his own free will or was as a result of any fraud practised on him was a point of fact. Feeling dissatisfied with it the plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court. 5. The question whether the gift-deed dated 30th November, 1961 was executed by Mohan out of his own free will or was as a result of any fraud practised on him was a point of fact. The trial court on a consideration of evidence on record came to one conclusion and the lower appellate court came to another conclusion. It was open to the lower court of appeal to draw its own conclusion on the evidence existing on the record. The mere fact that the conclusion drawn by the lower court of appeal is different from the conclusion drawn by the trial court cannot convert the point of law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that under Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act it was not a part of the duty of a Sub-Registrar to read over and explain the contents of a document presented to him for registration. Learned counsel further urged that the Sub-Registrar in the instant case travelled beyond the realm of his duties in making an endorsement on the gift-deed that it bad been read over and explained to Mohan. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the aforesaid endorsement was made by the Sub-Registrar in transgression of his duties, the lower court of appeal could not place reliance on it to conclude that the will was executed by Mohan out of his own free will. It was stressed that the judgment recorded by the lower court of appeal, therefore, calls for interference by this court. 7. I have given my most anxious consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel, but I regret my inability to accept it. The relevant portion of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant read as follows :- "(3) The registering officer shall thereupon - (a) inquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports the have been executed. x x x x 8. x x x x 8. In my opinion the provision contained in sub-section (3) (a) of Section 34 requires the registering officer to satisfy himself, when the document is presented to him, to make such inquiry as is necessary in order to convince him that a document has been executed by a person by whom it purports to have been executed. Obviously, this satisfaction cannot be derived by merely showing the document to the executant, particularly, when the executant is an illiterate person. In the case of an illiterate person it appears to be obligatory on the part of the registering officer under sub-section (3) of Section 34 to read over the document to him and thereafter ask him whether it was executed by him or not. In fact, such a mandate is contained in Rule 304 of the Registration Manual which is a statutory rule. The relevant part thereof can be extracted as follows:- "When a document is accepted for registration.... The registering officer should then, with as little delay as possible, inquire whether the document was executed by the alleged executant and satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him to admit execution. He should also satisfy himself that the person admitting execution has read and understood the contents of the document and should, if the person is illiterate or cannot read and understand the document, will explain the nature and contents to him." (Underlining by me). 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the Sub-Registrar transgressed his duty in making an endorsement on the gift-deed that it had been read over and explained to Mohan and the latter had admitted it to be correct and that it should not have been taken into account by the lower court of appeal, cannot therefore be accepted. 10. On a perusal of the judgment of the lower court of appeal it is crystal clear that in order to reach the conclusion regarding the genuineness of the gift-deed, it has placed reliance on the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar as well as the statements on oath made by respondent No. 3 and Prag (D.W. 2) a marginal witness of the gift-deed. The lower court of appeal preferred the evidence adduced by the respondents over the evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellant. I do not think the trial court committed any illegality in doing so. The lower court of appeal preferred the evidence adduced by the respondents over the evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellant. I do not think the trial court committed any illegality in doing so. 11. This appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.