A suit for specific performance of the agreement to register the document is maintainable, especially when seeking other reliefs beyond mere registration, and that the remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy subject to the discretion of the court.

At the end of this Order, what I say at the beginning, induced by the number of rulings cited at the bar, will be better understood. The revision relates to the soundness of the lower Court's finding on a preliminary issue. But before going into it let me quote a passage from Paton (Jurisprudence):

"The community must be ruled by law and not by men, for then all are equally treated. But should we carry our natural love of equality as an attribute of justice so far as to treat twenty plaintiffs unjustly because one binding case laid down an unjust rule ? Is it better to be ultimately right or consistently and persistently wrong ?"

Isaac, J., in Aust. Agric. Co. v. Federated Engineer-Drivers Assocn., (1913) 17 CLR 261 at p. 278: "It is not in my opinion better that the Court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right."

Reverence for precedents in a country of many courts, as in India or America, may often defeat the very object of certainty of the Law by plunging it into a maze of conflicting rulings and subtle distinctions pushing it away from ordinary people who are expected to know the law and obey it. The present case is an illustration in point.

2. The defendant, the revision petitioner, executed a sale of the plaint property to the first plaintiff, pursuant to an earlier agreement. But when the deed was presented for registration, denied execution, whereupon the Sub-Registrar refused to register it under Section 35 (3) of the Registration Act. Instead of applying under Section 73 to the Registrar to establish his right to have the document registered, the plaintiff sued for a decree directing the defendant to get the deed registered and to deliver possession of the property to him together with profits. The defendant denied the very agreement to sell and the execution of the document. He also contended that since the plaintiff did not file any application to the District Registrar against the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the document the plaintiffs have not exhausted the remedies provided for in the Registration Act and so the suit filed before that for compulsory registration is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

On this last contention, issue 6 was framed, tried preliminary and found for the plaintiff. This finding is strenuously canvassed before me, based on a long line of decisions, matched, of course, by another long line taking the contrary view. In the absence of a Kerala decision or a declaration of the Law by the Supreme Court I shall align myself with those Judges whose reasoning appears to me as more logical and equitable.

3. When a document is presented for registration but the person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying (Section 35.3). Part 12 of the Registration Act provides for the procedure for refusal of registration and follow-up action by the aggrieved party. Where refusal is the result of denial of execution "any person claiming under such document -, may, within 30 days after the making of the order of refusal, apply to the Registrar - in order to establish his right to have the document registered." (Section 73.1). Section 74 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Registrar in his enquiry as to whether the document has been executed.

"If the Registrar finds that the document has been executed......he shall order the document to be registered." (Section 75.1).

"If the document is duly presented for registration within 30 days after the making of such order, the Registering Officer shall obey the same." (Section 75.2). If the Registrar refuses to direct the registration of a document, as a result of his finding Under Section 75, he "shall make an order of refusal and record the reasons for such an order in his Book No. 2, and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall without unnecessary delay