Wallis, J.

1. The main question raised in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act which requires a mortgage to be effected by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses are sufficiently complied with when the witnesses are not present at the execution of the instrument by the mortgagor, but attest it subsequently on his acknowledgment of his signature-This question has been answered in the negative by the Calcutta Court in Girindra Nath Mukerjee v. Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee I.L.R. (1898) C. 246 and Abdul Karim v. Salimun I.L.R. (1899) C. 190 and in the affirmative by the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in Ramji v. Bai Parvati I.L.R. (1902) B. 91 and Ganga Dei v. Shiam Sunder I.L.R. (1903) A. 69.

2. As to what is meant by attesting an instrument the appellant has relied on numerous old cases under Section 5 of the Statute of Frauds of which Stonehouse v. Evelyn (1734) 24 E.R. 3, Grayson v. Atkinson (1752) 28 E.R. 29. Ves. Sen. 454 Ellis v. Smith (1754) 3 O.E.R. 205 and White v. Trustees of the British Museum (1829) 6 N.C. 310 were cited before us. In these cases, it was held that under the prov