JUDGMENT Travedi, J. - This is a plaintiffs' second Civil appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional Civil Judge, Basti, allowing the appeal and modifying the decree of the learned Munsif. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of a sale deed executed by them on 22-5-1964 in favour of the defendants-respondents. The case of the plaintiffs-appellant was that Ram Laut Plaintiff-appellant no. 1 was a minor and appellant no. 2 Naurang on a,:count of deaths in the family had become insane and taking advantage of the mental condition of the plaintiff-appellant no. 2, the defendants-respondents got the sale deed executed under the influence of liquor. It was, therefore, contended that the sale deed was the result of fraud practised upon the plaintiffs. 2. The defendants-respondents contested the suit and denied that the sale deed was the result of any fraud practised upon the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The lower appellate court modified the decree of the trial court. Accordingly to the lower appellate court Ram Laut was a minor and the sale to the extent of one-third share of Ram Laut was, therefore, cancelled. The lower appellate court disbelieved the plaintiffs' plea of insanity, undue influence and fraud. The sale deed of the property to the extent of two third share of Naurang was maintained. 3. This second civil appeal has been filed by both the plaintiffs. Learned counsel, on behalf of Ram Laut, has contended that his share was and not ?rd as held by the lower appellate court. He has not been able to show how the finding of the lower appellate court that the share of the Ram Laut was 1 /3rd is erroneous. 4. The next contention is that Ram Laut did not present the deed for registration and one person by name SAUN was brought by the defendants to impersonate Ram Laut. The presentation of the deed according to him was not in accordance with Section 32 of the Registration Act and as such the whole deed was void. The sale deed was presented for registration on 22-5-1964. Jr was, presented for registration by Naurang alone on 15-6-1964 and one person alleged to be SAUN impersonated Ram Laut and acknowledged the execution of the sale deed on behalf of Ram Laut. The sale deed was presented for registration on 22-5-1964. Jr was, presented for registration by Naurang alone on 15-6-1964 and one person alleged to be SAUN impersonated Ram Laut and acknowledged the execution of the sale deed on behalf of Ram Laut. Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act on which reliance has been sought is in these words : "Except in the cases mentioned in (Secs. 31, 88 and 89), every document to be registered under this Act whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration office : (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or." A plain reading of the section shows that it is not obligatory that all the person executing or claiming under a deed should present the document at the registration office. All that it provides is that the document should be presented For registration by some persons executing the sale. Some person cannot mean all persons executing the sale. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the case of Jambu Prasad v. Muhammad Nawab Aftab Ali Khan, A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 16 where it was laid down that : "The terms of Sections 32 and 33 of Act III of 1877 are imperative and a presentation of a document for registration by an agent who has not been duly authorised in accordance with these sections does not give the registering officer the indispensable foundation of his authority to register the document, which comes into force if and when a document is resented to him in accordance with law." That was a case where the document executed by a party was not presented for registration by him but was presented for registration by an agent who was not authorised to present the same and it was in that context that their Lordships of Privy Council held that the presentation was not in accordance with Section 32 oOf the Registration Act. In the instant case Naurang was admittedly one of the executant and he did present the document for registration. It cannot, therefore, be said that the document was not presented for registration by the executant. In the instant case Naurang was admittedly one of the executant and he did present the document for registration. It cannot, therefore, be said that the document was not presented for registration by the executant. Other cases on which reliance has been sought by the learned counsel for the appellants are cases where some insignificant property was added in the bale deed to enable the executor to get the sale deed registered at a particular registration office even though the intention of the executor was not to transfer file said insignificant property. It was in those cases where his Lordships held that the document was a fraud and passed no title to the transferee. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed his reliance on the case of Sarat Chandra Basu v. Sir Bijoy Chand Mahtab Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of Burdwan, 1937 A.L.J. 604 P.C. wherein it was laid down : "If a document is executed by two or more persons it is not necessary, that all of than should present it for registration; and the presentation thereof by one of them is a sufficient compliance with the law." The above case supports the respondents and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the document was not presented in accordance with Section 32 of the Registration Act has no force. 6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the sale deed having been executed by two persons and one of whom was minor has to fall as a whole. The contention has no force. A document of sale executed by two persons each having distinct shares will amount to a transfer by each individual of his own share and if the transfer by one individual is bad for any reason the transfer by the other of his distinct share cannot be said to be ineffective on that account. While the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any case on the subject, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Ewaz v. Birj Lal, (I) I.L.R. Alld. 465 (P.C.). In that case their Lordships were considering the words of Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act. 465 (P.C.). In that case their Lordships were considering the words of Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act. It was laid down there that : "The words of Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act, VIII of 1871, which provide that 'If all or any of the persons by whom the document (i.e. the document presented for registration) purports to be executed deny its execution, or if any such person appears to be minor, an idiot, or a lunatic, or if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document,' taken literally, seem to require the registering officer to refuse registration of a deed which purports to be executed by several persons if any one of them deny execution, or appear to be a minor, an idiot, or a lunatic. Since such a construction would cause great difficulty and injustice and would be inconsistent with the language and tenor of the Act, the words in question must be read distributively, and construed to mean that the registering office shall refuse to register the document qua the persons who deny the execution of the deed, and qua such persons as appear to be under any of the disabilities mentioned." The observation of their Lordships in Privy Council in the above mentioned case do go to support that where the deed is executed by two persons in respect of their shares but is bad so far the transfer by one of the executant is concerned, the whole deed will not fall on that account. In Jetharam v. Hazarimal, A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 28 a Bench of Rajasthan High Court relying on (I) I. L. R. Alld. 465 (supra) held that; "Where a document is executed by, two or more persons and one of them admits execution and the document is registered then the document will be effective against the person at whose instance the document is registered." There can, therefore, be no doubt that the sale deed in the instant case was effective with respect to share of Naurang who had presented the sale deed and whose plea of undue influence and fraud was repelled by the lower appellate court. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that according to the finding of the lower appellate court Naurang also was a party to the conspiracy in which Saun impersonated Ram Laut. His contention, therefore, is that in any event Naurang being a party to the fraud, cannot take advantage of his own fraud. The proposition that a person who is a party to a fraud cannot take advantage of his own fraud is well settled. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contends that both Naurang and the transferee were parties to the fraud and where both the transferor and transferee are guilty equal fraud in that event the transferee cannot seek any help from the court. Reliance has been placed by him in Immani Appa v. Gopali Ramalingamurthi, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 370. The relevant head note is as under : "Where both the transferor and the transferee were in equal fraud in carrying out the transfer to defraud the creditors of the transferor and the fraud contemplated has been carried out, but the possession remains with the transferor, in a suit by transferee for possession, it is open to the transferor to plead fraud and the absence of consideration. In such a case there can be no question of estoppel for the obvious reason that the fraud in question was agreed to by both the parties and both parties have assisted each other in carrying out the fraud. When it is said that a person cannot plead his own fraud it really means that a person cannot be permitted to go to a Court of law to seek for its assistance and yet base his claim for the Court's assistance on the ground of his fraud." This case goes to support the respondents rather than the appellants. The plaintiff-appellant was a party to the fraud and what this case lays clown is that he cannot be permitted to go to the Court of Law to seek any assistance on the ground of his own fraud. 8. The result, therefore, is that this appeal has no force and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.