Dixit, J. - (1.)BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the applicant Nyadarsmgh seeks a writ in the nature of 'certiorari' for quashing an order of the Registrar, District Nimar, cancelling the registration of a sale deed executed by the opponent Chensingh in favour of the petitioner.
(2.)THE facts out of which this petition arises are as follows:
On 17 -3 -1951 Chensingh sold to the petitioner a house belonging to him for a sum of Rs. 200/ - and executed a document of sale. On the same day he presented the document in the office of the Sub -Registrar, Khargone, for registration. As the Sub -Registrar was out, the document was received by a clerk in the office and no endorsement required by S. 52, Registration Act could be made on the document.

Nothing happened after the presentation of the document till 30 -12 -1951 when Nyadarsingh made an application to the Registering Officer complaining that Chensingh was avoiding appearing before the Sub -Registrar for the registration of the sale deed and that he be compelled to appear before the Sub -Registrar. On this application a notice was issued to Chensingh to show cause why the sale deed should not be registered.

In response to this notice Chensingh appeared before the Sub -Registrar, and while not denying the execution of the sale deed raised various objections to the registration of the deed. The Sub -Registrar overruled Chensingh's objections and passed an order on 3 -3 -1952 directing the registration of the sale deed. Chensingh then preferred an appeal before the Registrar.

In appeal the Registrar took the view that as at the time of presentation of the document on 17 -3 -1951, the Sub -Registrar was absent and the document was received by a clerk in his office, there was no valid presentation of the document under S. 23, Registration Act; that the sale deed would be deemed to have been presented on 3 -2 -1952 when the clerk who received the document placed it for the first time before the Sub -Registrar, and that as on 3 -2 -1952, the eight months' time within which the document could have been presented from the date of its execution after con -donation of the delay under S. 25 of the Act, had already exceeded, the document could not be registered under S. 31 of the Act. He, therefore, passed an order cancelling the registration of the deed.

On 17 -3 -1951, When Chensingh presented the document in the office of the Rub -Registrar, the Madhya Bharat Registration Act (Act No. 48 of 1919) was in force. The provisions of this Act were in no way different from those of the Indian Registration. Act; in order to avoid constant reference to the provisions of corresponding sections of both the Acts, I will only refer for the sake of convenience to the material section of the Indian Registration Act.

(3.)THERE is no dispute as to the facts. The argument of Mr. Chitale, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under Ss. 23 and 23 a document is duly presented if it is presented in the office of the Sub -Registrar within whose sub -district the whole or some portion of the property to which the document relates is situated and that it is not necessary that the document should be banded over to the Sub -Registrar personally; that the presentation on 17 -3 -1951 by Chensingh of the sale deed in the office of the Sub -Registrar was, therefore, a valid presentation; that registering officer having thus got jurisdiction by the proper presentation of the document, the failure to follow the procedure laid down by S. 52 of the Act, and the appearance of the executants more than 4 months after the execution of the document without the delay being condoned by the Registrar could not vitiate the registration proceedings, and that in any case the Registrar had no power under the Registration Act to cancel the registration of a document by the Sub -Registrar.
;