Advocates:
Solicitors for appellants:W. W. Box & Co. Solicitors for respondents: Watkins & Hunter.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Hira Bibi vs. Ram Hari Lal:

• Case Identification: The case is an appeal (No. 6 of 1924) from a decree of the High Court at Patna, which varied a decree of the District Judge of Patna, originating from a suit decided on June 23, 1925, by the Privy Council (!) (!) .
• Parties and Subject Matter: The respondents sued the appellants to enforce by sale a mortgage dated August 17, 1906, for Rs. 29,000 (!) . The only substantial question in the appeal was whether the mortgage was binding upon the first appellant, Hira Bibi, who was a pardanishin woman (!) .
• Procedural History: The District Judge initially made a decree for sale against the first appellant but dismissed the suit against others. The High Court set aside the decree against the first appellant and made a mortgage decree against all defendants, ruling that while the execution was not duly attested, Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act rendered the document valid due to the appellant's admission of execution during the trial (!) (!) .
• Facts of Execution: It was admitted that Hira Bibi actually signed the bond, but she was a pardanishin lady behind the parda. None of the witnesses were present to see her sign; her son took the deed inside the parda, came out, and told those outside that she had signed it before the witnesses signed (!) .
• Legal Issue: The core issue was whether Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act (requiring attestation) was a rule of law affecting validity or a rule of evidence affecting proof, and whether an admission by the party could cure a defect in attestation (!) (!) .
• Lower Court Reasoning: The High Court judges held that Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act operated such that the admission of the defendant made it unnecessary for plaintiffs to prove due execution, following earlier decisions of the Calcutta and Patna High Courts (!) (!) .
• Privy Council Precedents: The Privy Council referenced *Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir