Valid presentation of a document is a necessary condition precedent for registration, and no presumption of valid presentation can be drawn from the Registrar's order under Section 25 of the Act, in the absence of evidence that the Registrar had passed such an order after valid presentation and compliance with the provisions of that section.

JUDGMENT :- The facts giving rise to this second appeal by the plaintiff lie within a narrow compass :

2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Ganeshmal and Sardarmal executed a mortgage deed dated 1-3-54 for a sum of Rs. 8000/-in favour of the plaintiff Nemichand. Shri M. K. Rathi, an Advocate of Ajmer presented the mortgage deed on behalf of the mortgagee plaintiff Nemichand before the Sub-Registrar, Ajmer on 1-7-1954 which was the last date for presentation of the deed, the limitation prescribed for the purpose being four months from the date of execution. The Sub-Registrar returned the document the same day with the following endorsement :-

"Mr. M. K. Rathi counsel for Nemichand present. The above presentation along with the document does not appear to be valid, and further the time prescribed for registration expires to-day and there is no time left to enforce the appearance of the opposite party. Therefore, in view of Section 4 of the Indian Registration Act no further action can be taken. The document is therefore returned."

What exactly happened thereafter is not known but there is a further endorsement of the Sub-Registrar dated 9-10-1954 which runs thus :-

"The document received from the Registrar of Assurances, Ajmer under his No. 3416- XXII-D-21 dated 15-7-1954 with the direction to register it on payment of 10 times the amount of proper registration fee as fine.

Mr. M. K. Rathi Advocate appeared on 22-7-1954 and put in an application under Section 36 of the Indian Registration Act."

There is yet another endorsement of the Sub-Registrar of the same date to the effect that Shri Badgel filed power for both the opposite parties requesting for time to file objections but did not undertake to produce the opposite parties. It is further mentioned in this endorsement that notice was issued to the opposite party No. 1, namely, Ganeshmal, and it was not received after service but Shri Badgel stated that substituted service had been effected on Shri Ganeshmal. The opposite party No. 2, namely Sardarmal was reported to be absent in spite of service. Consequently, the Sub-Registrar observed that the absence of both the executants in spite of service amounted to denial of execution of the document and therefore he refused to register it. Dissatisfied with the latter order of the Sub Registrar of 9-10-1954 the plaintiff moved an application under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act of 1908 (which for shortness will hereinafter be called 'the Act') before the Registrar who also by his order dated 22-5-58 refused to register the document on the ground that it had not been properly presented before the Sub Registrar, Ajmer. Incidentally he also observed that the document had not been proved to be duly executed.

The plaintiff thereupon filed the present suit under Section 77 of the Act on 30-6-1958 in the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer praying that a direction may be issued for registration of the mortgage deed. The suit was resisted by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who while admitting their signatures on the document pleaded lack of receipt of consideration. They also pleaded that there was no valid presentation of the document and consequently the suit was liable to be dismissed. They raised a further objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the order of the Sub Registrar dated 1-7-1954 was appealable and no appeal having been filed from that order the present suit did not lie.

3. The learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Ajmer but was unsuccessful. Consequently, he has come in second appeal to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the lower courts had passed an order dt. 15-7-1954 directing the Sub-Registrar to register the was no valid presentation of the mortgage deed. It is contended that the Registrar had passed an order dated 15-7-1954 directing the Sub-Regi