1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. Paragraph 1 of the plaint which alleged that the plaintiffs were mortgagees of the property was admitted in the written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, dismissed the suit upon the ground that the mortgage-deed had not been properly presente.3' for registration. The presentation of a mortgage-dead for registration is a proceeding which is prescribed by Section 32 of the Registration Act of 1877, which was in force at the time when this document was registered. A deed must be 'presented' for registration by some person executing or claiming under the deed or by their agent, or representative or assign duly authorized in the manner prescribed by the Act. The name of Kundan Lal appears on the endorsement on the deed which was in fact registered. It also appears from the endorsement that the mortgagors were present and were identified before the Registrar. Kundan Lal was examined as a witness and he stated that he was present at the registration representing the mortgagees. He states that the mortgagors were all present. It is true that he says that it was not he but the mortgagors who presented' the deed. Evidently, he was afraid that if he did state that he himself 'presented' the document, the side for whom he was giving evidence would lose their case. It seems to us that the word 'presented' has a technical meaning and that we ought to consider what the real facts are, and then to come to a conclusion whether, having regard to those facts, the document was duly 'presented' within the meaning of the section. Taking into consideration the evidence of Kundan Lal, coupled with the endorsement on the bond, we have not the least doubt that all the mortgagors were present at the time of registration, and when the document was brought before the Sub-Registrar, Kundan Lal was sent to represent the mortgagees, to pay over the money to the mortgagors and to bring the document away after registration. It is true that Kundan Lal was not authorized in the manner prescribed by the Act, and it is clear that if none of the executants were present, Kundan Lal alone could not have 'presented' the document because he was not 'duly authorized', and the presentation by him would not have satisfied, the requirements of the Act. We think, however, that where the executants were present acquiescing in the handing over of the document to the Registrar for registration, that the document was being 'presented' by them for registration within the meaning of the Act. We accordingly think that this appeal ought to be allowed. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the case to that Court with directions that it be re-admitted under its original number in the register and tried on the merits. Costs here and hitherto will follow the result.