M.C. Tripathi, J. - (1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by Ham Gopal and Kishan Chand, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 against Jamuna Prasad, Chanda Devi, Ram Kali, Munni, Mithlesh Kumar, Surendra Kumar, Virendra Kumar and Kamendra Kumar respondents, who are the heirs of Jagannath Prasad. Jamuna Prasad is now dead and is represented by Smt. Eataso, 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 registration was refused as to Jagannath Prasad executant by the Sub -Registrar. The appellants then presented an appeal to the District Registrar, but it was dismissed on 10 -1 -1959. On 9 -2 -1959, this suit was filed by the appellants for directing the respondents to get the document registered, and in case they failed to do so for directing the Sub -Registrar to register the document. Jagannath. Prasad died before the institution of the suit and respondents 1 and 3 to 8 are his legal representatives.
(3.) In defence, execution of the document by Jagannath Prasad was denied. But it is no longer in dispute that the document was executed by Jagannath Prasad also. Nor is the question of the presentation of the document before the Sub -Registrar within time in dispute now. The only question in controversy now is whether the suit was or was not legally maintainable because an appeal was filed before the District Registrar and no application under Sec. 73 of the Registration Act was made before him within 30 days of the refusal of the Sub -Registrar. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal, reversed the decree of the learned Munsif and dismissed the suit, inasmuch as Jagannath Prasad did not appear before the Sub -Registrar to admit execution of the document. His non -appearance was treated by the Sub -Registrar as a denial of the execution and the appellant should have consequently filed an application before the District Registrar under Sec. 73 and not an appeal under Sec. 72 of the Registration Act. Since no application was filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 73 the procedure provided by law was held not to have been complied with, and consequently no suit was held maintainable under Sec. 77 of the Registration Act.;