1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 77 of the Registration Act to enforce the registration of a deed of sale. The deed of sale is said to have been executed by one Muhammad Bakar, on the 29th of December 1909. He died on the 5th of January 1910. The document was presented for registration by the vendee, the present appellant, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, on the 8th of January 1910. The Sub-Registrar, on the 15th January, for reasons, which appear in his order set out at page 2 of the respondent's book, refused registration. Registration was refused on the ground that the heirs of the executant were not summoned under Section 36 of the Registration Act.--Ed. The plaintiff appealed to the District Registrar, who, on the 4th of March 1910, dismissed the appeal. This suit was instituted on the 12th of March 1910. The Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not performed the preliminaries of procedure and conditions necessary to entitle him to the remedies and reliefs provided for in Section 77. The plaintiff appeals. We have considered the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing registration and the order of the District Registrar dismissing the plaintiff's appeal. We are satisfied that registration of the document was refused on grounds other than denial of registration. An appeal, therefore, lay to the District Registrar, and he in his turn having refused to register the document, the plaintiff was, under the provisions of Section 77, entitled to file a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration of his right to have the document registered. The question as to the genuineness of the document and its execution can be tried by the lower Court. The arguments, in which the learned Counsel for the respondents supports the decision of the Court below, proceed on the assumption that registration of the document was refused on the score of denial of execution. As said above, it is clear from the order of the Sub-Registrar that registration was refused not on the ground of denial of execution. It appears also that the plaintiff, after dismissal of his appeal, made a further application, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Registration Act, to the District Registrar for registration of the document. We are not aware of any provisions which would entitle the plaintiff to make a fresh application for registration after his appeal has been dismissed. The plaintiff had a right of suit by reason of the dismissal of his appeal. He could not lose that right by reason of the subsequent order of the 7th of March 1910, in which the District Registrar refused to take any action under Section 30. The appeal is allowed, the decree of the Court below is set aside, and the case will go back and be re-admitted to its original number in the register and tried on the merits. Costs in this appeal will be posts in the cause.