The importance of specific denial in the written statement and the requirements for proving attestation were central to the judgment.

Bose C J—This is a Defendant's appeal in a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage dated 9th July 1926 executed by the Defendant's father on behalf of himself and a minor son who is now dead. The Defendant ia an after-born son. He challenged the mortgage on a number of grounds but failed in the lower Court, and the suit was decreed against him.

2. The only points raised before us in appeal are as follows: First it is argued that the due attestation of the mortgage is not proved. The lower Court holds that it has been established.

3. In his written statement the Defendant denied only the execution of the mortgage and the consideration. He did not state that there was any want of due attestation. Under Order 8, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary for a Defendant who seeks to challenge any particular fact raised in a pleading to deal with that specifically.

The rule runs: It shall not be sufficient for a Defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.

But even leaving that on one side, in point of fact one of the attesting witnesses, p.w. 1, has been called and he states that the mortgage ''has been attested by me and Suganmal.''There is evidence apart from this to show that the father of the Defendant signed the mortgage and therefore execution by the mortgagor is established, and that is not contested here. The (sic)ly point raised here is about the due attestation. It is argued in respect of this evidence first, that the passage quoted, which is all that we have in the evidence, is not sufficient to establish attestation and secondly, that the other attesting witness, P.W. 5, was not asked any question about attestation; therefore the attestation has not been duly proved.

4. Section 3, T.P. Act, defines what attestation is and Section 68, Evidence Act states that where a document is required by law to be attested it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive but there is an important proviso to this section which runs as follows:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document...unless its execution by person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.

5. The execution of the document was specifically denied in the written statement, therefore it was necessary in this case to call one of the attesting witnesses to prove the execution. But that has been done. P.W. 1 is one of those witnesses. He has been called and he states that the document was attested by Suganmal and himself and that the mortgagor was present when they both attested the deed. It was argued that this is not sufficient to prove execution as required by Section 68 because when a witness is required to prove due execution he must set forth each of the details of attestation as required by Section 3, T.P. Act. It is not enough to say that the document was attested and executed. With this we cannot agree.

6. When attestation is not specifically challenged and when a witness is not Cross-examined regarding the details of the attestation it is sufficient for him to say that it was attested by the other witness and himself. That is enough to prove the attestation. The law will then, assume that when the witness swears that it was attested the witness means by that 'attested according to the forms required by law.' If the other side wants to challenge that statement it is their duty, quite apart from raising it in the pleadings, to cross-examine the witness along those lines. As that was not done here the Plaintiffs were entitled to assume that the mode of attestation was not being attacked and there, fore that it was enough for their witness merely formally to prove attestation. Sarkar in his