SRI RAM GOPAL Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit filed by Ram Gopal and Kishan Chand, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 against Jamuna Prasad, Chanda Devi, Ram Kali, Munni, Mithlesh Kumar, Surendra Kumar, Virendra Kumar and Ramendra Kumar respondents, who are the heirs of Jagannath Prasad. Jamuna Prasad is now dead and is represented by Smt. Bataso,Mahesh Chandra, Dinesh Chandra, Ramesh Chandra, Suresh Chandra, Kumari Asha Devi and Kumari Usha Devi respondents 2/2 to 2/7. Smt. Ram Kali is also now dead and her legal representatives are already on the record.

(2.) ON 11-12-1957 an agreement was executed by the appellants on the one hand and Jamuna Prasad and Jagannath Prasad on the other in respect of a Sahan land in district Farrukhabad. It was presented for registration by Jamuna Prasad on 8-1-1958.Jamuna Prasad and Ram Gopal, appellant No. 1 admitted execution, but Jagannath Prasad did not appear before the Sub-Registrar. Registration was thereupon postponed. On 10-1-1958 re gistration was refused as to Jagannath Prasad executant by the Sub-Registrar. The appellants then presented an appeal to the District Registrar, but it was dis missed on 10-1-1959. On 9- 2-1959 this suit was filed by the appellants for direct ing the respondents to get the document registered and in case they failed to do so for directing the Sub-Registrar to re gister the document. Jagannath Prasad died before the institution of the suit and respondents 1 and 3 to 8 are his legal re presentatives.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appel lants contends that in the first place mere non-appearance does not amount to a denial of execution, that the Sub-Registrar himself did not refuse to register on the ground of a denial of execution and that the District Registrar was in error in having treated the order of the Sub-Re gistrar as a refusal to register on such a ground and should not have dismissed the appeal The learned counsel for the ap pellant also contends that even if the order of the sub-registrar be treated as being one on the basis of denial of execu tion and the appeal could not be treated as an application since it was not verified in accordance with Section 3 of the Registra tion Act the order of the District Re gistrar amounted to a refusal to order re gistration of a document and that the suit was consequently maintainable under Sec tion 77 of the Registration Act