BHAGABAT RAY Vs. PARAMESWAR PAIKARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 564. 80P. on the strength of Ext. 1 dated 7 -8 -1862 which is a mortgagee by conditional sale for Rs. 400/ - with a stipulation that if the mortgage is not put into possession, interest was payable as mentioned in the document. In the written statement the execution of the mortgage bond was not specifically denied. On the contrary, it was admitted by the Defendants that possession of the mortgaged property was handed over to the Plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the mortgage bond and Plaintiff remained in possession from 1962 to 1966 whereby the mortgage dues were fully discharged out of the usufruct and Plaintiff was to refund an amount of Rs. 31, 05 P. In paragraph 2 of the written statement it was pleaded that the mortgage deed was not attested in accordance with law.

(2.) THE only point for consideration in this appeal is whether Ext. I was duly attested.

(3.) EXT . 1 has admittedly been signed by two witnesses. P.w. 1, one of the attesting witnesses, has been examined in the case. He deposed, to the following effect in examination -in -chief: