JADUNANDAN CHAUBE Vs. SURAJDEO NARAIN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises in this second appeal is whether the Courts before were correct in holding that the mortgage deed in suit was not attested in the manner required by law.

(2.) The mortgage deed bears the signature of the executor and in the margin of the deed there are the names of two persons purporting to be witnessess since each name is preceded by the letter g (gawah). There is a fourth name in the margin, namely, Thakur Prasad; but this name is not preceded by the letter g but by the latter d (dastkhat) showing that Thakur Prasad did not purport to sign as a witness of the deed. The evidence shows that Thakur Prasad was in fact the scribe of the deed.

(3.) As regards the two signatures of the persons who purport to have signed as witnesses it has been found that one of them, namely Maheshar Ram did not sign his name himself and that there was no proof that he had authorised the scribe to sign for him as an attesting witness. For this reason the lower appellate Court held that Maheshar Ram was not a valid attesting witness. We may mention that the trial Court found that Maheshwar Ram was not even present at the execution of the deed but the lower appellate Court did not come to a finding of fact on that point.