JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by defendant 2 arises out of a suit brought by the sub-mortgagee against the sub-mortgagor and the original mortgagor. Defendant 2 was the original mortgagor. The mortgage bond is dated 27th February 1920, and was executed in favour of defendant 1. Defendant 1 sub-mortgaged his right to the plaintiff by a deed dated the 18th January 1921. The Subordinate Judge, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 2, in his appeal, takes the ground that neither the original mortgage bond nor the sub-mortgage-bond was properly attested. With regard to the bond executed by the original mortgagee, the contention of the learned vakil for the appellant is untenable, because there is the evidence of one witness that the other witnesses also at tested the document, and there was no cross-examination on the point. The argument with regard to the original mortgage bond has more substance Of the two witnesses, whose names appear as attesting witnesses, one was examined, viz., Mr. Sambhu Nath Banerjea. This gentleman was a vakil of this Court at the time when he attested the bond. He is now an advocate and a barrister-at-law. This gentleman stated in bis cross-examinati