Execution under the Registration Act requires assent to the deed's contents, not just admitted signatures or thumb impressions.

Under the Registration Act, execution means assent to the contents and legal effect of an instrument, not mere affixation of signature or thumb impression. Where execution is denied, the proper statutory route is an application under Section 73 followed by enquiry under Section 74; a proceeding mislabelled as an appeal under Section 72 is not invalid if it is in substance treated as a Section 73 enquiry and both sides participate. Admission of signature alone does not amount to admission of execution, especially where fraud or undue influence is alleged. The appeal succeeded, and the orders directing registration were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 lies when the Sub-Registrar refuses registration on the ground of denial of execution; (ii) Whether admission of signature and thumb impression amounts to admission of execution of the sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 lies when the Sub-Registrar refuses registration on the ground of denial of execution.

Analysis: Sections 35(3)(a), 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 create distinct routes depending on whether registration is refused for denial of execution or for some other reason. Where execution is denied, the proper course is an application under Section 73, followed by the Registrar's enquiry under Section 74. A proceeding wrongly labelled as an appeal under Section 72 does not fail if, in substance, it is an application under Section 73 and both sides participate in the enquiry. The Registrar's order in such a case is not saved by the incorrect description of the proceeding, but the Registrar cannot act outside the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The recourse to Section 72 was not maintainable, but the mislabelling did not vitiate the proceeding because it was effectively an enquiry under Sections 73 and 74.

Issue (ii): Whether admission of signature and thumb impression amounts to admission of execution of the sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908.

Analysis: Execution is not the same as mere signing. For a document to be executed, the signature or thumb impression must be made as assent to the contents and legal effect of the instrument after the executant has understood it. A person who alleges that signatures were obtained by fraud, coercion, deception, or on an incomplete or different document does not thereby admit execution merely because the signature is admitted. The Registrar, in a summary proceeding, cannot decide a serious dispute of fraud and undue influence as if it were a civil trial.

Conclusion: Admission of signature did not amount to admission of execution, and the Registrar acted contrary to law in directing registration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the District Registrar's order directing registration of the sale deed was also set aside, leaving pending civil and criminal proceedings unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Registration Act, execution means assent to the contents and legal effect of the instrument, not mere affixation of signature or thumb impression, and a Registrar cannot uphold registration in a summary proceeding where execution is specifically denied on grounds of fraud or undue influence.

---