Satyanarayana Rao, J.-This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing her suit under section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. Plaintiff’s husband presented to the Sub-Registrar of Kothapeta on the 8th January 1944, a document purporting to be a sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on the 29th September, 1943. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document as the defendant denied its execution. There was an appeal against that decision of the Sub-Registrar to the District Registrar who agreed with the Sub-Registrar and confirmed his decision. His order is dated 15th November, 1944. A suit was thereafter instituted by the plaintiff on the 13th December, 1944, under section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for enforcing registration of the document. The document is Exhibit P-2 in the case. The document consists of six sheets of paper of which five sheets are stamp papers of the aggregate value of Rs. 82-8-0. The sixth and the last sheet is a brown paper and there is the thumb impression of the defendant only on the last sheet. There is the “nishani” (mark) put by the scribe on the first five sheets. On the stamp papers, it is significant, there is no thumb impression. It purports to be a sale for a sum of Rs. 5,500 of lands of the extent of about 24 acres belonging to the defendant and in which are included about 10 acres of wet land. The document was attested by two witnesses, Vageswara Venkataraju and Nadimpilli Chandraraju. The document, it is in evidence, is in the handwriting of one Appalaraju. The defendant’s case was that the plaintiff’s husband who was the village munsiff of Vedireswaram represented to her that in order to get the contribution demanded from her to the War Fund reduced it was necessary to present a petition to the Tahsildar and on that representation her thumb impression was obtained by the plaintiff’s husband on a blank paper. She also pleaded that she could not have sold the property for such a low consideration of Rs. 5,500 especially as the property comprised also wet lands of considerable value.

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself on commission and examined her husband as P. W. 4 and one of the attestors as P.W. 3. During the course of the trial she got Exhibit P-17 produced through P.W. 5, which purports to be an application intended to be sent to the Sub-Registrar for procuring his attendance at the house of the defendant for registering the document. The importance of this document is that it purports to bear the thumb impression of the defendant and contains an admission that the property was sold to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,500, though the date of the document is left blank in the petition. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the case was of opinion that the document was not executed by the defendant and that the evidence to establish its execution was interested and no reliance could be placed upon it. He also found that the consideration for the sale was wholly inadequate, having regard to the evidence regarding the value of the property at or about the time and relied on this as a circumstance improbabilising the case of the plaintiff that the defendant sold the property to the plaintiff. He accepted the version of the defendant that the thumb impression was obtained by the plaintiff’s husband on a blank paper on the representation that it was necessary to file a petition to get the contribution to the War Fund reduced and that sheet was utilised as the sixth sheet in the document for bringing into existence a sale deed. He also noticed that in the recitals in the document the description of the properties was repeated more than once in order to bring over the matter to the last sheet, the brown paper. For these reasons the learned Judge in a very exhaustive and careful judgment came to the conclusion that the document could not be directed to be registered under section 77 of the Registrati