deputed to examine the executant Sukhu Lohar regarding the execution of the sale deed. On the back of the second page of the sale deed (Ext.B), the relevant part of the endorsement reads “… the said Sukhu Lohar admitted the execution of this document. The executant Sukhu Lohar refused to give his thumb mark as the consideration money mentioned in the deed was not agreeable to him, hence the identifier also refused to sign. So far as execution is concerned, he admitted it”. After the perusal of this report, the registering authority recorded his remarks which read. “From the above report, I am satisfied that this document has been executed by the said Sukhu Lohar and I accordingly admit it to registration”. From these facts, it becomes glaring that the grievance of the plaintiff no.1 was with regard to the consideration money and not with regard to the execution and registration of the sale deed. The allegation is that Rs. 500/- has been fraudulently mentioned in the sale deed although the agreed amount of consideration was Rs.1000/-. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff no.1 was only entitled to claim the consideration amount as agreed which according to him was Rs. 1,000/- in place of Rs. 500/-, by pleading and establishing the said fact by cogent evidence. From the recitals and endorsements in the sale deed (Ext.B) it further appears that the agreed consideration money had been paid by the purchaser. It is well settled by now that a duly registered
