1. The point raised in second appeal is that the suit to compel registration is not maintainable in this case as the Sub-Registrar did not refuse to register the document but under Section 20 of the Registration Act refused to take it up for registration; and that the Registrar, on appeal, must be taken to have done the same thing. Reliance is placed on Gangava v. Sayava 21 B.P 699. Assuming that, when a Sub-Registrar refuses to take up a document for registration, no appeal would lie to the Registrar, and no suit could be instituted in the regular Courts to compel registration, it is not shown that in this case registration was not refused. The District Munsif says that there was an appeal against the Sub-Registrar's order to the Registrar under Section 72. If the Sub-Registrar merely refused to take up the document for registration, no appeal would lie to the Registrar against his order according to the appellant's contention. The point raised here does not seem to have been argued in the lower Appellate Court. We cannot assume that there was not an order refusing registration by the Sub-Registrar and by the Registrar. On this ground, we dismiss the second appeal with costs.