Ramachandra Iyer, J.

(1) The following question has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench :

"Whether the decision in Veerappa Chettiar v. Subrahmanya Iyer, ILR 52 Mad 123 : AIR 1929 Mad 1, requires reconsideration."

The appeals which have given occasion for the reference involve a question as to the validity of a security bond executed in favour of the Register of this court creating a charge over certain immovable properties for payment of the amount due under a decree. The document was attested only by one witness at the time of execution. When the document was presented for registration, the admission of execution by the mortgagor was vouched by the signature of the Registrar. Two persons who identified the mortgagor before the Registrar also affixed their signature in token of their identification. The appellant, who impugned the validity of the security bond, contends that neither the Registrar nor the identifying witnesses could be deemed to be attesting witnesses, and those signatures cannot have the effect of rendering the document as a duly executed mortgage. A Full Bench of this court in ILR 52 Mad 123 : (AIR 1929 mad (1), held that the signatures of the registering officer and the identifying witnesses to the registration endorsement would be sufficient attestation within the meaning of S. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the reason given being that the registering officer and the identifying witnesses performed the same duty under the Registration Act, as would be done by the attesting witnesses under the Transfer of Property Act. Although the decision in that case stated that the signatures on the registration endorsement made alio intuitu to satisfy the requirements of the Registration could also be taken for the purpose of constituting thereby an attestation under the Transfer of Property Act, subsequent decisions of this court have understood it to mean that it is only in case where the evidence in a case establishes the fact that the Sub-Registrar and the identifying witnesses signed the documents in the presence of the executing, the rule enunciated therein would apply. Vide Nagamma v. Venkatramayya AIR1935Mad178 , Ramanathan Chetti v. Delhi Batcha Tevar, 60 Mad LJ 302 : AIR 1931 Mad 335 and Dhanapala Chetty v. Goverchand Sowcar AIR1938Mad959 . Even so, that view has not been accepted in the Full Bench Decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lechman Singh v. Surendra Bahadur Singh AIR1932All527 , by the Bombay High Court in Thimmava Dundappa v. Channava Appaya AIR 1948 Bom 322, and by the Oudh Chief Court in Chandrani v. Sheonath, ILR 6 Luck 619 : IR 1931 Oudh 146.

The conflict of authority reflected in the decision of this court in Ilr 52 Mad 123 : AIR 1929 Mad 1 and of the Allahabad High Court in AIR1932All527 , was noticed by the Privy Council in Surendra Bahadur Singh v. Behari Singh, but their Lordships did not consider it necessary in that case to settle that controversy, as in their view, even if it were legitimate to look at the proceedings relating to the registration for the proof of due attestation of the mortgage deed, evidence in the case before them was insufficient to prove the necessary facts to constitute a valid attestation.

(2) The question whether the signatures of the registering officer and the identifying witnesses affixed to the document under the provisions of Ss. 58 and 59 of the Registration Act could be relied on as those of attesting witnesses to the document presented for registration, has primarily to be decided in the light of the relevant statutory provisions. As the case before us relates to the validity of a security bond, it will be useful first to refer to S. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act which says,

"Where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards a mortgage other than a mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses.

Where the principal