Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Petitioners Smt. Darpi, Chandra Bhan, Girijesh and Om Prakash have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.9.1996 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADM’) holding execution of sale-deed in question by Sri Sadhoo (who died on 3.5.1993) valid and thus directing Sub-Registrar, Bansgaon to register the same by complying with Sections 56 to 61 of The Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. The case, set-up in the writ petition is, that the sale-deed was presented in the office of Sub-Registrar on 3.5.1993 by respondent No. 3, purchaser of the property described in the sale-deed. The property belongs to one Sadhoo son of Mata Palat. While the office of Sub-Registrar was in the midst of completing formalities, Sadhoo felt uneasiness and left the office of Sub-Registrar. He died in evening on the same day. The Sub-Registrar thereafter declined to register the document. Respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 35 of the Act before A.D.M. On 11.7.1994, praying that the Sub-Registrar be directed to register the document. This application was opposed and contested by petitioners by filing objections on 19.8.1994. The petitioners disputed execution of sale-deed before Sub-Registrar. Appearance of late Sadhoo on 3.5.1993 before Sub-Registrar was also disputed. The Sub-Registrar submitted a report dated 11.7.1994 stating that execution had not been made in accordance with provisions of the Act and therefore, the document was rightly returned. He also said that the alleged execution is dated 3.5.1993, and more than eight months have passed, hence the document is not registrable being barred by limitation under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act. The respondent No. 1 thereafter has passed the impugned order.

3. The respondent No. 1 while allowing application of respondent No. 3, has observed that late Sadhoo got the sale-deed drafted from Sri Jitendra Bahadur Shahi, Advocate and placed his thumb impression thereon which was verified by two witnesses namely Surendra Pratap Singh son of Ram Murat Singh and Ram Vilas son of Baijnath Singh in the office of Sub-Registrar who also affixed his seal at the back of the first page of the document and completed all the columns. The said seal also contains signature of Sub-Registrar which he subsequently scored out. The A.D.M. also held that Ram Das was the real brother of Sadhoo and Dhurandhar-respondent No. 3 was his son. The respondent No. 3 had accepted execution of sale-deed, therefore, the Sub-Registrar ought to have registered the document in question.

4. In order to find out, what was the position of document and what formalities were completed, this Court vide order dated 5.2.2004 required respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the alleged sale-deed for perusal. The document was later on actually perused by the Court on 30.4.2004 and following observations were recorded:

“Sri S.P. Shukla, D.I.G. Registration, Gorakhpur and Sri Brij Lal Singh, Prabhari Sub Registrar are present before this Court.

After looking into the original sale-deed, which has been produced before this Court, both Sri S.P. Shukla, D.I.G. Registration, Gorakhpur and Sri Brij Lal Singh, Prabhari Sub Registrar have stated that it is not necessary that the attesting witness should sign all the pages of the sale-deed. It is further stated that since attesting witness has signed on the first page of sale-deed, it is sufficient. Attesting witness is not required to attest the signature of executant on the pages.

Sri Brij Lal Singh has not been able to explain as to what is the figures 14/1994 as mentioned on the left hand top corner of the first page of sale-deed suggest.

It has further been specifically stated that Prapatra, which is necessary to b