The jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar and District Registrar is limited to the enquiry of the execution and identity of the executant, and a suit under Section 77 of the Act is limited to the question of registration of the document.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff/respondent had presented a sale Deed for registration relating to Sy. Nos. 21/7 and 21/8 of village Alur before the Sub-Registrar at - Channagiri on 1st April, 1970. The sub-Registrar, after recording the statement of the defendant/executant, refused to register that document and passed an order under Section 36 of the Indian Registration Act ('the Act' for short ). The said order is rather ambiguous. While he has observed that the executant has denied execution of the document (Ex. P1) he also observed that another document which was executed by the plaintiff should also be produced for registration. He has ultimately refused registration of the document (Ex. P1) on the ground that the execution of the same was not proved. It is quite apparent that if the Sub- registrar refuses to register a document on the ground that any person, by whom it purports to be executed, denies its execution, the aggrieved party may move the District Registrar by way of an application under Section 73 of the Act. On the other hand where the refusal by the Sub- registrar is on any ground other than the denial of the execution, an appeal is provided under section 72 of the Act. In the Instant case the plaintiff/respondent moved an application under section 73 of the Act. The District Registrar noticed the fact that the order of refusal was rather ambiguous, and perhaps that led the plaintiff to file an application under Section 73 of the act treating it as a refusal on the ground that its execution was denied. The District Registrar also, by his order dated 2-3-1971 refused to register the document in question. From the order of the District Registrar it appears that he agreed with the conclusion reached by the Sub- registrar that the transaction between the parties was not merely a transaction of sale of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 27/1 and 28/1, but was really a transaction of exchange of lands between the parties, and that 2 documents had been actually executed both in the nature of sale deeds to give effect to the transaction of exchange. On such ground the District Registrar rejected the application under Section 73 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff there after filed a suit in which be claimed the following reliefs:1. "for specific performance directing the defendant to get the sale deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, channagiri and failing which the Court to get the Sale Deed registered; 2. For possession of the suit schedule properties from the defendant; 3. For past mesne-profits for the year1970-71 at Rs. 150/- per year; 4. For future mesne profits from the dateof suit till the date of the delivery of possession; 5. For Court costs; and 6. Such other reliefs as the Court deemfit to grant in the circumstances of the case".

( 3 ) THE plaint also discloses that the suit is under Section 77 of the Act read with Order VII, rule 1, CPC. The aforesaid suit, being O. S. No. 371/71, was disposed of by the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, bhadravati on 19-4-1975. The learned Munsiff treated the suit as a suit for specific performance of the agreement and, on considering the material placed before him, refused to grant the reliefs prayed for on a finding that between the parties there was an agreement whereby they had agreed to exchange the lands and that the transaction was sought to be given effect by the parties executing sale deeds in respect of their lands in favour of each other. He, therefore, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for registration of the sale deed and for possession of the suit lands.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge, shimoga, by his Judgment and decree dated 3-8-1979. The learned Additional Civil Judge held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not a suit for specific performance of an agreement, but was a suit under Section 77 of the Act. He held that the defendant having admitted the execution of the sale deed bef