1. We agree with Seshagiri Aiyar, J., that this case falls within Section 77 of the Registration Act. This is in agreement with the interpretation adopted by our Court in Narasimha Nayanim Varu v. Ramalinga Row (1899) 10 M.L.J. 104 and Sivarama Pattar Kariahar v. Krishna Aiyar : (1914)26MLJ307 and we also may point out that the rules framed under the Act are in accordance with this view.
2. A contrary view, it is true, has prevailed in Gangava v. Sayava I.L.R. (1899) B. 699 but the fallacy of the reasoning in that case, if we may say so with respect, lies in thinking that there is any substantial distinction between refusal to accept a document for registration and a refusal to register within the meaning of Section 77 read with Ss. 76 and 72. Here the District Registrar had in fact refused to direct registration of the document and none the less so because he made no enquiry as to whether the document was executed or not, proceeding on the ground that the document was in his opinion presented out of time.
3. We may mention that a ruling referred to at the bar in Kunhinmu v. Biyyathamma I.L.R. (1884) M. 585 can be distinguished on the ground that the appeal to the Registrar in that case having been presented after the expiry of the prescribed period, it was considered as if there was no appeal and admittedly where there has been no appeal to the Registrar no suit will lie under Section 77. There are also some observations in Balambal Ammal v. Arunachala Chetti I.L.R. (1894) M. 255 and Veeramma v. Abbiah I.L.R. (1894) M. 99 which might be taken to support the interpretation put upon Section 77 in Gangava v. Sayava I.L.R. (1899) B. 699 but they are in the nature of obiter dicta.
4. It is also argued that the suit is barred. But time should be computed from the order of the Registrar, dated the 1st February 1913, when on appeal, he refused to direct the registration and not from his previous order refusing to extend time.
5. The appeal is dismissed.