RAMJI HARIBHAI Vs. BAI PARVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question arising in this case is whether the lower Court has misconstrued Section 59 of the Transfer oi Property Act. Both the lower Courts have relied on the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Girindra Nath Mukerjee V/s. Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee (1898) 26 Cal. 246 and Abdul Karim V/s. Salimun (1899) 27 Cal. 190.

(2.) Section 59 runs: Where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgager and attested, by at least two witnesses.

(3.) The mortgage-bond here sued upon is signed by the mortgagor and attested by three witnesses, and has been duly registered. The deed hag been acted upon and the mortgagees have been put in possession.