JUDGMENT

Moti Sagar, J. - This was a suit to enforce registration of a sale-deed under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The facts are briefly these. On the 21st March 1917 the defendant sold two houses in the City of Amritsar to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 7,000. A sale-deed was duly executed signed and delivered to the plaintiff. Out of the sale price fixed, a sum of Rs. 3,700 was paid to the defendant in advance on the day the sale-deed was completed, and as to the balance of Rs. 3,300 it was stipulated that it would be paid before the Sub-Registrar on the day the deed was registered. The plaintiff's allegation is that he repeatedly called upon the defendant to get registration of the sale-deed effected, and to receive the balance of the sale price, but he failed to do so. On the 23rd April 1917 the plaintiff lodged the sale-deed with the Sub-Registrar of Amritsar, and took out a summons under Section 36 of the Registration Act ordering the defendant to appear and admit execution on the 30th May 1917. The summons was duly served, but he neglected to appear. Thereupon the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document and returned it to the plaintiff with an endorsement "Registration refused." The plaintiff thereupon moved the Registrar on the 7th June 1917 by an application which was couched in the following words:

Anant Ram,--Appellant.

versus

Uttam Singh,--Respondent.

Miscellaneous appeal from the order of the Sub-Registrar, Amritsar, dated the 30th May, 1917, refusing registration of the sale-deed, executed by the respondent in favour of the applicant for Rs. 7,000 in respect of house situate at Amritsar.

GROUNDS.

On the 21st March 1917, the respondent executed a deed of sale for Rs. 7,000 in respect of a house, situate at Amritsar in favour of the Appellant and completed the same. He after signing the deed in Persian and English characters in the presence of witnesses, and after perusing the contents of the deed made it over to the appellant vendee for getting it registered. Out of the sale money he received Rs. 3,700 and the remaining Rs. 3,300 was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar. The appellant under Section 36 of the Registration Act filed an application in the office of the Sub-Registrar for authoritative registration. But the respondent did not put in appearance in spite of his having been personally served with summons. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar refused registration. Hence an application under Sections 72 and 73 of the Registration Act is made with the prayer that the applicant's appeal may be accepted and the sale deed ordered to be registered. The appellant is prepared to pay the remaining sale money. The sale-deed is herewith attached in original.

Dated the 7th June 1917.

Petition of--

(Sd) ANANTRAM, Appellant.

2. The application was in writing and was duly signed by the applicant and was accompanied by a copy of the reasons recorded under Section 71 of the Registration Act. It was made within 30 days from the date of the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the document and' was presumably presented in person by the petitioner in the office of the Registrar. The only defect in the application was that it was not verified by the petitioner in the manner required by law for the verification of the plaints. Otherwise it fully complied with the requirements laid down in Section 73 of the Act. The Registrar treated this application as an appeal under Section 72, and after service of notice on the, defendant, the executant of the deed, dismissed it on the 13th August 1917 on the ground that registration had been refused because of denial of execution and that consequently an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act was not competent. The present suit was then instituted by the plaintiff on the 27th of August 1917. The main contention of the defendant was that the suit was not maintainable in as much as the plaintiff had failed to perform the preliminaries of procedure and conditions essential to en