JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 12th May, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2138/94 Sajjan Mal v. The Registrar . By the aforesaid order the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. In their writ petition the appellants (petitioners) impugned the order passed by the Registrar (Registration) on 31st March, 1994, whereby he directed the Sub-Registrar to get the site measured and boundary fixed in accordance with the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 1-7-1986 and then decide the question of registration of the document. The learned single Judge held that the impugned order dated 31st March, 1994 passed by the Registrar did not cause any injury to the petitioners (appellants) and all that was directed to be done by the Registrar was to get the verifications done by the Sub-Registrar, in view of the decree passed by the Rajasthan High Court declaring the plaintiff Jorawarmal to be the owner of 66,555.05 sq. ft. of land forming part of the disputed land. In view of the findings that the impugned order passed by the Registrar did not cause any injury to the petitioners (appellants), the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. 3. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below:- The appellants are the heirs of Shri Jorawarmal. Shri Jorawarmal had filed the suit in the Court of District Judge, Merta for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed in favour of Shri Jorawarmal on 14th May, 1974 by the District Judge, Merta. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 160/74 was filed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Merta. The appeal was partly allowed by this Court. The judgment and the decree passed by the District Judge, Merta was maintained with the modification that the plaintiff Jorawarmal was declared to be the owner of 66,555.05 sq. ft. of land forming part of the disputed land and that land was delineated by points ABCD in red ink by the Court in Ex. C.I. i.e. the site plan prepared by the Court Commissioner in the presence of all the parties. ft. of land forming part of the disputed land and that land was delineated by points ABCD in red ink by the Court in Ex. C.I. i.e. the site plan prepared by the Court Commissioner in the presence of all the parties. The defendants were restrained from interfering with' the peaceful possession of Shri Jorwarmal, who was declared to be entitled to raise his own boundary walls over the portion ABCD marked in Ex. C.I. and put the land to any other lawful use. According to the appellants Jorawarmal entered into an agreement for sale of the land to Shri Ashok Kumar, Chhotu Bhai and Shantilal. Before the sale deed could be executed by Jorawarmal, he died on 17th October, 90. After the death of Jorawarmal the purchasers asked the appellants, who are the legal heirs of Jorawarmal, to execute a sale-deed in their favour for the land measuring 66,555.05 sq. ft. The appellants executed a sale deed in favour of the purchasers and presented the same before the Sub-Registrar, Makarana, district Nagaur on 20th October, 92 for registration through their Power of Attorney Holder. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed did not tally and on the site the Block Development Officer informed that the land belonged to the Panchayat Samiti and was in the Khatedari of the Panchayat Samiti. Sub-Registrar, therefore, returned the sale deed with the above endorsement to the appellants Power of Attorney Holder. 4. The appellants filed an appeal before the Registrar (Registration) Nagaur against the order passed by the respondent No. 2. The appeal was partly allowed and a direction was given by the respondent No. 2 that the Tehsildar should measure the size of the plot and thereafter, the documents should be presented before the respondent No. 2, and the respondent No. 3 will pass appropriate orders. The above mentioned order was passed by the respondent No. 1 on 31st March, 1994. Against the order dated 31st March, 1994 passed by the respondent No. 1, the appellants filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. 5. The above mentioned order was passed by the respondent No. 1 on 31st March, 1994. Against the order dated 31st March, 1994 passed by the respondent No. 1, the appellants filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent No. 2 was not justified in refusing to register the sale-deed executed by the appellants on the grounds that the boundaries of the land sold by the appellants did not tally and that the land was shown as Khatedari land of the Panchayat Samiti. It is further submitted the learned counsel for the appellants that the decree passed by this Court in First Appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Nagaur declared Shri Jorawarmal to be the owner of 66,555.05 sq. ft. and the land of which Shri Jorawarmal was declared to be the owner was shown by the letters ABCD in the site plan, which was prepared by the Court Commissioner in presence of the parties to the suit and in view of the site plan prepared by the Court Commissioner and the decree passed by this Court in First Appeal, there was no justification on the respondent to refuse the sale deed and there was no equally justification for the respondent No. 1 to have directed an inquiry to be conducted by the respondent No. 2 while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the respondent No. 2. In other words, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were without jurisdiction. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the learned single Judge and submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in the appeal filed by the appellants (petitioners) against the order passed by the respondent No. 2, did not cause any injury to the appellants (petitioners) and therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition was justified. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the file S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2138/94. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the file S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2138/94. It is true that the appellant-petitioners filed the certified copy of the decree passed by this Court in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 60/74 and a certified copy of the site plan Ex. C/1 was also filed by him. But, the appellant did not file the copy of the sale deed executed by them in favour of the purchasers, to show that the description of the property given in the sale deed executed by them in favour of the purchasers was exactly the same as given in the decree passed by this Court. 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Registration Act provides that save as otherwise provided by any rule made under sub-section (1), failure to comply with the provisions of Section 21, sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), shall not disentitle a document to be registered if the description of the property to which it relates is sufficient to identify that property. 9. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 provides that no non-testamentary document relating to immovable property shall be accepted for registration unless it contains a description of such property sufficient to identify the same. 10. In view of sub-section (1) of Section 21, it is a bounden duty of the Sub-Registrar to find out if the description of the property given in the document, which is presented for the registration is sufficient to identify the property. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 also requires that the document, which is produced for registration must contain sufficient description of the property to identify that property. 11. The appellants-petitioners have not filed the copy of the sale deed executed by them to show that the description of property given in the sale deed executed by them was sufficient within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 21 and sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Registration Act. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Registrar on 31st March, 1994 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal. The learned single Judge was therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioners. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The learned single Judge was therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioners. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******