Hon’ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by petitioners for issue of writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 4.7.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) directing the Sub-Registrar, Karnailganj, District Gonda to register the sale-deed executed in the favour of Respondent No. 2.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition.

3. Facts to decide the present writ in brief are as under :

One Late Brij Lal father of petitioner No. 2, was bhumidhar having transferable right of agricultural plot No. 2807 and 3636 having area 0.23 and 1.09 acer respectively. Late Brij Lal was literate and used to sign the documents. He executed sale-deed and his own registered will having his signatures thereon before his death on 21.1.2001. Brij Lal left behind petitioners as his only legal heirs and legal representatives. Respondent No. 2 Dinesh is nephew of Brij Lal. A sale-deed alleged to had been executed by Brij Lal in his life time in favour of Dinesh, Respondent No. 2 of plots mentioned above. After execution of sale-deed Brij Lal disappeared from Sub-Registrar office on the pretext of stomach pain and did not return for getting the sale-deed registered. The Respondent No. 2 presented the sale-deed for registration before Sub Registrar under Section 34 of Indian Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. After issue of notices the execution Brij Lal did not turn up. Sub-Registrar treating the absence of Brij Lal as his denial to accept the execution of sale-deed refused the prayer of respondent No. 2 for registration of Sale-deed vide its order dated 12.7.1997 (Annexure-2 to writ petition). Aggrieved by the order of Sub-Registrar Respondent No. 2 preferred the appeal under Section 73 of the Act before District Registrar, respondent No. 1. In appeal Brij Lal alleged to had been appeared before Registrar through an Advocate Sri C.P.Singh who filed the written Statement of Brij Lal, wherein the execution of sale-deed has been denied. Brij Lal did not turn up before Respondent No. 1 inspite of notice, resultantly Registrar, respondent No. 1 proceed ex-parte against Brij Lal and after recording statement of respondent No. 2 and the alleged witness of sale-deed ordered the Sub-Registrar to register the Sale-deed by its order dated 4.7.1998 against which this petition has been filed.

4. The petitioners filed this writ petition after registration of sale-deed in pursuance of impugned order, mutation of name of respondent No. 2 in the revenue records on 27.1.1999 and death of Brij Lal on 21.1.2001 mainly on the following grounds

(a) Brij Lal never signed and executed alleged sale-deed

(b) Never engaged any advocate nor filled written statement before respondent No. 1.

(c) Brij Lal never received any summon or notice of appeal from the office of respondent No. 1 nor he ever appeared before respondent No. 1, District

Registrar.

(d) Brij Lal never appeared before Sub-registrar or District Registrar and did not accept execution of sale-deed.

(e) Consideration never passes under the alleged Sale-deed.

5. No Counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. However, Sri Janardan Singh Advocate appeared for respondent No. 2 and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1.

6. It is well-settled law that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction when other efficacious remedy like civil suit is available. However if a legal question is based on undisputed facts the same may be looked into and may be decided.

7. It is evident from perusal of the impugned order that respondent No. 1 on the basis of evidence of Respondent No. 2 and his witnesses formed an opinion that Brij Lal executed sale-deed.

8. In view of undisputed facts and submissions of the counsels for parties two impotent questions arise for consideration to decide this writ petition.

A.- Whether Registrar can direct the Sub Regist