AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 93 words
1.
The two witnesses, plaintiff''s witnesses Nos. 2 and 3, prove that the attesting witnesses were not present at the execution of the document, and that it was attested on the acknowledgment of the 1st defendant, the executant. It has been held in Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir Ravuthan 18 M.L.J. 219 that this is insufficient and that the document must be treated as one not duly attested u/s 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be enforced. We confirm the appeal on this ground and dismiss it with costs.