.1. Defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage dated 8. 1950. The plaintiffs case is as follows:-

.The suit properties belong to the plaintiffs. They have executed an Othi in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit properties for Rs. 300 on 8. 1950 for a period of five years. Possession was also handed over to the first defendant. The period prescribed for the Othi has expired. In spite of a request and notice the defendants have failed to hand over the suit properties and hence the suit.

.2. The defendants contended as follows:-

.The defendants do not admit that the plaintiffs have title and possession in respect of the suit properties either or the date of the suit of prior to that. It is not admitted that the plaintiffs executed the Othi in favour of the defendants. The suit properties are ancestral properties of the first defendant. They have been granted patta. Defendants 2 and 3 have acquired prescriptive title by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs should prove due execution and attestation of the Othi deed. The correlation given by the plaintiffs for the suit properties by way of amendment of the plaint is not correct. The boundaries given for the suit properties are wrong.

3. On these pleadings the District Munsif, Manamadurai, framed five issues and conducted trial. Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. Exs.B.1 to B.17 were marked and D.W.1 was examined on the side of the defendants. Learned District Munsif, Manamadurai, decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court the defendants preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga. Learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence the defendants have now preferred this appeal. At the time of admission of the second appeal the substantial question of law which was framed for consideration runs as follows:-

Whether Ex.A. 1 had been properly attested as required under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act?

The following further point was framed for consideration:- Whether it is necessary for the plaintiffs to positively establish their title in spite of rule of estoppel?

4. The Points:- The mortgage is alleged to have been executed in the Year 1950. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property, Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act") refers to attestation and defines that “attested" in relation to an instrument, shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has re ceived from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. The essential condition of attestation is that two or more witnesses must see the executant sign or affix his marks to the instrument or must have received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature and each of them must have signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. It is essential therefore, for the attesting witness to put his signature for the purpose of attesting the signature of the executant as it is called animus. The attestation also need not be in particular form according to Section 3 of the Act. In this case, as already referred to, the registration copy of the Othi has been marked as Ex.A.1. P.W.2 Veranna Thevar is the attestor of the original of Ex.A.1 . He has been examined and he has spoken to valid attestation. The evidence of this witness has been acce