JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19th July, 1983 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioners appellants was that the respondent No Maha Singh agreed to sell 50% of his agricultural land to petitioners for an amount Rs 6,000/- by executing a sale deed on 21st April 81. The above sale deed was submitted for registration befor the Sub-Registrar, Nagar District Bharatpur on 21st April 1981 itself. The Sub-Registrar asked Maha Singh regarding the passing of consideration and as Maha Singh stated that he did not receive the consideration, the Registrar made the following endorsement on the sale deed and kept the same pending. " egkflag us :i;s izkIr djus ls bUdkj dj fn;k] vr% nLrkost isf.M+x fd;k tkrk gSA " 3. The petitioners aggrieved against the aforesaid action of the Sub-Registrar filed a writ petition before this court. Learned Single Judge held that when Maha Singh had stated that he had not received an amount of Rs. 6,000/- the Sub-Registrar was right in not registering the sale deed. Learned Single Judge further observed that in a democratic State where uneducated people are produced and when they denied the receipt of consideration of their land, in his opinion the Sub-Rearstrar was right in refusing the registration of the document. Learned Ssngle Judge in these circumstances dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, the present special has been filed. 4. It was contended by Mr. Bandhu learned Counsel for the petitioners that the execution of the sale deed was admitted by Maha Singh and even if the consideration of the sale deed was denied, under Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 read with Section 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, the only course open to the Sub-Registrar was to put a note of denial in the endorsement required by Section 58 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, registration of the document in the circumstances could not have been refused, specially when the execution of the document was admitted by Maha Singh. 5. On the other hand it was submitted by Mr. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, registration of the document in the circumstances could not have been refused, specially when the execution of the document was admitted by Maha Singh. 5. On the other hand it was submitted by Mr. Dhankar learned Counsel for Maha Singh that execution of the document was not admitted by Maha Singh and in these circumstances the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing to register the sale deed in question. 6. We have seen the original stamp deed which has been produced before us and from the endorsement made on it, it is not clear whether the execution of the sale deed was admitted or not by the respondent Maha Singh So far as the consideration of the sale deed is concerned there is clear endorsement that Maha Singh had refused to admit the passing of consideration of the sale deed. The seal which contains the endorsements of presentation does not bear the signatures of the Sub-Registrar and as such it is not clear whether the execution of the sale deed in question was admitted or not by Maha Singh. Section 58(2) of the Act clearly provides that if any person admitting the execution of a document refuses to endorse the same the registering Officer shall nevertheless register it but shall at the same time endorse a note of such refusal. Rule 40 of the rules also provides that if any person admits the document presented for registration but denies the receipt in whole or part of the consideration therein registration shall not be refused because of such denial but note of a denial shall be made in the endorsement required by Section 58. In the present case it is not clear whether Maha Singh had admitted or refused the execution of the sale deed. The Registrar has not recorded a finding of the admission or refusal of the execution of the document by Maha Singh and has only recorded that Maha Singh had refused to receive the consideration of the sale deed. The Sub-Registrar even did not pass a clear order whether the document was refused the registration or not. The only order passed by the Sub-Registrar is that the document is kept pending. In our view this was not the proper procedure adopted by the Registrar in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. The Sub-Registrar even did not pass a clear order whether the document was refused the registration or not. The only order passed by the Sub-Registrar is that the document is kept pending. In our view this was not the proper procedure adopted by the Registrar in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. The Sub-Registrar should have recorded the statement of Maha Singh whether Maha Singh admitted the execution of the sale deed or not and also regarding the passing of the consideration subsequently. In case Maha Singh admits the execution of the document and only denies the passing of the consideration, then the Sub-Registrar ought to register the sale deed in accordance with the provision of rule 40 and should make a note of refusal of consideration over it. On the order hand if the Sub-Registrar arrived to the conclusion that Maha Singh denied the execution of the sale deed, in that case the Sub-Registrar should record such finding and give reasons for refusing to register the sale deed. The Sub-Regisirar was not justified in merely keeping the document pending and not recording a clear finding regarding the refusal of the registration of the sale deed. 8. In the result this special appeal is allowed, the judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside and the Sub-Registrar is now directed to take fresh proceedings in accordance with the directions given above and according to the provisions of Rule of 40 the Rules and Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs. The original sale deed produced before this court may now be sent back to the Sub Registrar, Nagar District Bharatpur along with the copy of the judgment of this court for taking further action according to law.Appeal allowed. *******