AMARAPPA SANABASAPPA GUMALPUR Vs. RACHAVA SUGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in this case relies upon a deed of gift, He was unable to prove in the trial Court that it was attested according to law. THE deed would require to be attested by two witnesses under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. In Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir (1912) 14 Bom. L.R. 1034, it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the word attested in Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act meant the witnessing of the actual execution of the document by the person purporting to execute it. It is quite clear that that decision also covers Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, so the appeal must be dismissed, unless we agree to allow it to stand over as suggested by the appellant s pleader on the chance of Act XXVI of 1917 being extended to this Presidency. We do not think the mere chance that that Act may be extended is any ground for allowing the appeal to stand over. It is true that we are told that a representation has been made to Government to extend the Act to this Presidency, but it is impossible to say whether that application will result in the Act being extended. No doubt if the Act is extended then provision may be made that suits which have been dismissed on the ground that a document has not been properly attested according to the decision in Shamu Patter s case may be restored. THE appeal is dismissed with costs.