AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—A very short point arises in this appeal. It was urged before us that the plaintiff Bank has not proved that the mortgage document was attested in the manner required by law. Prafulla Kumar Mullick, the sole witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff, stated in his evidence that be attested the mortgage-bond and that the defendant signed the mortgage-bond in his presence and in the presence of certain other persons. It was argued before us that the evidence does not establish that the witness actually saw the document being executed by the mortgagor and that he subscribed as a witness after seeing that the document was executed by the mortgagor; but it seems to me that the evidence is sufficient to establish that the witness signed the document as an attesting witness. He says very clearly that he attested the document. We must assume that he meant that he subscribed as a witness after he saw that the document was actually executed. If it were the case of the defendant that the witness was not in fact an attesting witness, he should have been cross-examined on the point; but the case was tried as an ex parte case and there was, of course, no cross-examination.
This appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
Kulwant Sahay, J.
I agree.