JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit, on foot of a mortgage. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that it was not proved that the mortgage had been duly attested as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The first Court also considered that the real mortgagee (that is to say, the person who had advanced the money) was one Man Mohan Lal and not Munna Lal, the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court held that the document had been duly attested and that the other question ought not to have been gone into at all. We think that the decision of the lower Appellate Court was correct. The plaintiff proved that the mortgage was signed by Bachchu Lal, the mortgagor. It was proved that one of the attesting witnesses was dead, The other attesting witness was called and proved that the mortgage was signed by the mortgagor in. his presence and that he had signed the deed as an attesting witness. It was not expressly proved that there was another attesting witness present who saw the mortgagor sign, but it was not proved to the contrary that there was not another attesting witness. The document on the face of it appears to have been signed by th