1. Mr. Basu, who has argued this appeal with great care and fullness, has presented this question for solution, namely, whether the registration of a document presented by a representative of an executant, who is dead at the time of the presentation of the document, is good registration within the meaning of the relevant sections in the Registration Act. So far as the facts are concerned, they lie in a narrow compass. It appears that the mortgagor was one Baramuddin Sarkar. He executed a mortgage in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs-respondents. After execution and before the presentation of the document for registration, he died, leaving as his heirs two sons, his widow and a daughter. It is unnecessary to add that; Baramuddin Sarkar was a Mahomedan and therefore under the Mahomedan law, the daughter would be entitled to a. share, as also the widow in addition to the sons. It appears that the two sons, after the death of their father, presented the document for registration before the Sub-Registrar. They admitted execution of the document. The Sub-Registrar, being satisfied that the document had been duly executed by the executant, registered the document. Mr. Basu's contention is that the registration was invalid, inasmuch as all the representatives of the deceased executant did not join in 'presenting the document to the Sub-Registrar for registration; in other words, his contention is that the registration was entirely invalid and, in the second place, assuming that it was not entirely invalid, such registration could not affect any portion of the immovable property covered by the mortgage so far as the interests of the widow and the daughter were concerned. This point has come up before the Courts on previous occasions. Some of the oases are noticed in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. But it is quite clear, having regard to the sections referred by Mr. Basu, namely, Sections 32, 33 and 35, Registration Act, and having regard to the combined operation of the decisions in the cases of Madhu Molla v. Babonsa Karikar : AIR1928Cal565 Sujan Bibi v. Asafa Khatun  4 I.C. 69 and Bafatunnissa Begam v. Husaini Begam : AIR1925All215 that it was not incumbent under the law that all the [representatives of the deceased executant should join in presenting the document, and that, supposing it was so incumbent, the defect, such as it was in this case, was a mere defect in procedure curable under Section 87, Registration Act. If that is so, and as we read the cases to which reference has just been made that that is so, there cannot be much doubt that Mr. Basu has very little chance of winning in this appeal.
2. That being so, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere in any way with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, and the result is that this appeal must stand dismissed with costs.