JUDGMENT 1. The only question raised In this appeal, which arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage-bond, is whether the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that the mortgage-deed was duly executed, regard being had to the provisions of sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned vakil for the Defendant-Appellant contends that the question should be answered in the negative, as one of the requirements of sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, namely, attestation by two witnesses, has not been satisfied. 2. On the other hand, the learned vaki for the Plaintiffs-Respondents argues that, upon the facts found by the lower Appellate Court, it has rightly held that the requirements of sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act have been satisfied. 3. Now, this is what the lower Appellate Court has found upon this point. "As to the second question, it appears," says the learned Subordinate Judge, "that the execution and the registration of the mortgage-bond are admitted by the Defendant in the case. The mortgage-bond also shows that it was duly signed by two witnesses able to read and write. Accordingly I am of opinion, under sec. 70 of the Indian Evidence Act, that execution of the mortgage-bond is sufficiently proved and that it is a legally valid document although the writer of it has, as I should think, falsely denied its execution by the Defendant in his presence--a denial which the Defendant himself does not give to the proper execution of the document." 4. Now, although, no doubt, as the learned vakil for the Appellant contends, sec. 70 of the Evidence Act is not sufficient to dispense with the necessity of proof of attestation by two witnesses to make the mortgage bona valid under sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act the only effect of sec. 70 being to make the admission of the executant sufficient proof of execution, yet the facts found, namely, that the mortgage-deed, on the face of it, shows that it was duly signed by two witnesses able to read and write and that it is a valid document, although the writer of it has falsely denied execution by the Defendant in his presence, are sufficient, in our opinion, to warrant the conclusion that the requirements of sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act about attestation by two witnesses have been satisfied. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act about attestation by two witnesses have been satisfied. The deed on the face of it shows that it is attested by two witnesses, one of whom is the writer, whose denial of execution of the deed in his presence has been found by the Court of Appeal below to be false, and the other witness is Radhika, who has not been disbelieved, and whose evidence goes to show that the executant signed in his presence, but he is not able to remember whether the executant signed also in the presence of the writer. We find, however, that the writer's signature, as attesting witness, precedes that of the other witness, and, under the circumstances, we think that it may be fairly presumed that they both signed as attesting witnesses, after the execution of the document by the Defendant, and that that presumption is sufficient to support the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge. That finding is that the document is validly executed ; and the only way in which it has been, and can be, attacked by the Appellant in second appeal is by showing that here are no materials to warrant it. Well, to any such objection as that we say the presumption we have just referred to furnishes a sufficient answer ; and the view we take, that such a presumption may be raised is supported by the case of Burgoyne v. Showier 1 R. Eccl. R., p. 5 (1844) and also by sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. The appeal therefore fails and must be dismissed with costs.