DINABANDHU PATRA Vs. SANATAN DANDAPAT AND BIKRAM KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond. The execution of the bond was admitted by defendant No. 1, the sole executant. Defendant No. 2 is a purchaser of a part of the mortgaged property. He alone contested the suit, his main objection. being that the bond was invalid for want of consideration; This point was decided in his favour by the first Court; bat that finding has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court and the suit has been decreed against both the defendants.

(2.) As regards the issue of payment of consideration, the finding of the lower Appellate Court is final in second appeal, but it is now contended that the suit should be dismissed on the ground that there has been no proof of execution of the bond or that it has bean attested according to law.

(3.) As regards the question of execution, this, it is stated, was admitted in the written statement of defendant No. 1. It also appears to have never been denied by defendant No. 2 and farther, the defendant No. 2 in his evidence stated that the bond had been signed in his presence. It cannot, therefore, be held that there was no evidence to support the finding of the lower Appellate Court and, if there was any evidence at all, this finding is final.