The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Provisions of the Registration Act, particularly regarding the maintainability of appeals under Section 72 and Section 73, and the implications of the refusal to register a document by the sub-registrar.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition a simple question seems to have been blown out of proportion, to be in proportion to the subject-matter of the sale deed. The petitioners seek to restrain the second respondent from proceeding with an appeal filed before him by the first respondent, apparently under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the act' for short ). The petitioners also seek the quashing of an order made by the second respondent on 25-5-1993 whereby the first respondent held that he had competence to entertain and consider the said appeal. Another order sought to be quashed is dated 22-/-1993 (annexure-ac), though the order of the said date states that the second respondent has reserved his orders on i. as. l, 2 and 3 filed before him to be pronounced on 28-/-93. The writ petition was presented on 26-/-93 and 28-/-93 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, Rule was issued and an interim order was made staying further proceedings before the second respondent. A direction was also issued to post the writ petition for disposal during the week commencing 30th august, 1993. The interim order states that the first respondent has already filed a suit o. s. 122 of 1992 wherein the main relief sought is for a direction that the sale deed dated 16-2-92 executed by the first petitioner herein in favour of the first respondent is valid and binding on her and that the suit seems to be not a simple suit for permanent injunction. A few more reasons are given for making the interim order. Now that the matter has been heard at length, the efficacy of the said interim order would not survive.

( 2 ) THE first petitioner and her husband late Dr. Roerichowned a considerable extent of an estate near Bangalore known as thataguni estate. A portion of the estate belonging to the husband of the first petitioner was sold to the first respondent on 2/-3-91. However, there is some portion seems to have been left out of the said sale deed measuring about 92. 17 acres with which the present dispute is not concerned. According to the first respondent there was an agreement entered into between the first petitioner and the first respondent wherein the first petitioner agreed to sell the portion of the estate belonging to her also to the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 93. 12 lakhs. The first respondent asserts that the first petitioner obtained no objection certificate from the income-tax department and thereafter on 16-2-92 the sale deed was signed. On /-3-92 it was presented by the managing director of the first respondent before -the sub- registrar. The first petitioner however did not appear to complete the sale deed and there is some dispute as to what happened thereafter regarding the action taken to have the sub-registrar going to the first petitioner's residence in response to an alleged request made on behalf of the first petitioner. The fact remains that the sub-registrar did not make any order though he received the registration fee and put a seal on the alleged sale deed. Therefore, on 8-6-92 writ petition No. 17932 of 1992 was filed by the first respondent against the sub-registrar only seeking a writ of mandamus to the sub-registrar to register the document. In the meanwhile an application under Section 36 of the act seems to have been filed on 11-6-92 before the sub-registrar to enforce the attendance of the first petitioner and according to the petitioners this application was not pursued by the first respondent. However, the fact remains that on 15-6-92 the first respondent filed a suit before the city civil court, Bangalore, seeking a simple injunction but this suit was withdrawn as the same was filed in a court which had no jurisdiction. Thereafter, another suit was filed on 19-6-92 in the court of civil judge, Bangalore district, Bangalore, as per o. s. No. 122 of 1992. This suit requires to be remembered throughout these proceedings and it has a bearing on the contentions rai