Due execution of a sale deed requires assent to contents; altered recitals justified refusal of registration.

Execution of a sale deed requires assent to the contents of the instrument, not merely a signature or thumb-impression. On the facts, the thumb-impression could not amount to proof of execution because recitals about the oil engine and coconut trees were found to have been inserted after the thumb-impression was affixed, and the document showed signs of alteration. In these circumstances, the registering authority was justified in refusing registration when the executant did not admit the document in the form presented, and the concurrent factual findings required no interference. The appellant therefore failed to establish due execution and a right to compel registration under the Registration Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant proved the due execution of the sale deed and established a right to compel its registration under the Registration Act.

Analysis: Execution of a document means more than mere affixing of a signature or thumb-impression; it requires assent to the contents of the instrument. On the evidence, the respondent's thumb-impression in the sale deed did not amount to an admission of execution because the recitals relating to the oil engine and coconut trees were found to have been inserted after she had affixed her thumb-impression. The document bore signs of alteration, and the registering authority was justified in refusing registration when the executant did not admit the document in the state in which it was presented. The concurrent findings of the courts below on these factual aspects called for no interference.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove due execution of the sale deed, and the refusal to register the document was upheld.

---