Judgement This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Manipur, Imphal, in C. A. No. 72 of 1967, whereby he decreed the plaintiffs suit reversing the decree of the trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that his grand-father Sarangthem Chaoba Singh, was the owner of the suit land and he made a gift of the same in favour of the plaintiff under a registered instrument on 14-2-1962, being satisfied with his services. After the said gift, the plaintiff prayed for mutation of his name in the record of rights before the Assistant Settlement and Survey Officer, but the latter refused the mutation. In the meantime, the defendant, who is his paternal uncle, dispossessed him from the land on or about 14-11-1961, taking advantage of the fact that he held some receipts for payment of revenue in respect of the suit land, which he had paid as an agent of his father. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit land and for recovery of possession. 3. The defendant contested the suit denying the alleged gift. It was, however, not challenged that the suit land belonged to late Sarangthem Chaoba Singh. According to the defendant, Chaoba Singh was very old and insane at the time of the alleged gift, and he had no mental capacity to make the gift. It was alleged that the deed of gift was obtained by the plaintiff with the help of his father by exercising undue influence over the said Chaoba Singh. The defendant, on the other hand claimed that his father Chaoba Singh sold the suit land to him by delivery of possession for a consideration of Rs. 100/-, as back as 1942, and that since then he has been in possession by his own right. Alternatively he claimed title to the land by adverse possession. 4. Upon the pleadings, several issues were framed including the following issues which were issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively : "3. Has the plaintiff right and title over the suit land on the basis of the deed of gift executed by late Chaoba Singh ? 4. Alternatively he claimed title to the land by adverse possession. 4. Upon the pleadings, several issues were framed including the following issues which were issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively : "3. Has the plaintiff right and title over the suit land on the basis of the deed of gift executed by late Chaoba Singh ? 4. Whether the deed of gift was caused to be executed by late Chaoba Singh under undue influence and by taking advantage of his insanity at the relevant time and as such it is void ? 5. Is the defendant a trespasser ? or, Whether the defendant has acquired title over the suit land on the basis of purchase as alleged in para 2 of the written statement or by adverse possession over 12 years ?" 5. In deciding issue No. 4, the learned Munsiff held that late Chaoba Singh was insane at the time of the alleged execution of the deed in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff obtained the same by exercising undue influence over him. In deciding issue No. 3, he further held that the alleged deed of gift was invalid for want of proper attestation, inasmuch as, the attesting witnesses signed the document before it was executed, as admitted by one of the attesting witnesses, namely, P. W. 5 I. Tomal Singh. In deciding issue No. 5, it was held by the learned Munsiff that there is no evidence in support of the alleged purchase of the suit land by the defendant, but he held that the defendant had acquired title to the land by adverse possession for more than 12 years against his father. With these findings, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. 6. The learned District Judge, in the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff, reversed all the above findings of the learned Munsiff except the finding that there was no proof of sale of the suit land in favour of the defendant with which finding he concurred. In the result, the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed with costs. Hence, the defendant has come up with this second appeal. 7. In the result, the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed with costs. Hence, the defendant has come up with this second appeal. 7. The only point which requires determination in this appeal is whether the deed of gift said to be executed by Chaoba Singh, which is required by law to be attested, can be said to be duly attested if the witnesses purporting to have attested the same signed the document before its execution. 8. Shri Charugopal Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the question as to whether a document has been properly attested or not is one of fact, and as such the finding of the learned District Judge in this regard cannot be challenged in second appeal. In support of this contention he relied on the decision in Naresh Charan Das Gupta v. Paresh Charan Das Gupta, AIR 1955 SC 363 . 9. I do not find any force in the above contention. The question as to whether a document has been properly attested or not is not purely a question of fact, but a mixed question of law and facts. The question as to whether a document was executed by the alleged executant and if so whether he signed the same in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the latter also similarly signed in presence of the executant are undoubtedly questions of fact. But when an inference is to be drawn for (sic) (from) such facts as to whether they constitute proper attestation within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act it becomes a question of law. In the Supreme Court case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, the question was whether the attesting witnesses signed the document in the presence of the testator, and it was held by the Supreme Court in that case as follows : "It cannot be laid down as a matter of law that because the witnesses did not state in examination-in-chief that they signed the will in the presence of the testator, there was no due attestation. It will depend on the circumstances elicited in evidence whether the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator. This is a pure question of fact depending on appreciation of evidence." 10. It will depend on the circumstances elicited in evidence whether the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator. This is a pure question of fact depending on appreciation of evidence." 10. The question as to whether or not the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator is undoubtedly a question of fact. This case has got therefore no bearing on the present case, which depends on the interpretation of the word "attestation" as mentioned in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be mentioned here that in Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477 , the Supreme Court itself interfered with the finding of the First Appellate Court with regard to attestation of a document. 11. Let me now come to the merit of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no proper attestation of the deed of gift. 12. The deed in question Ext. A/3 Is purported to have been signed by two attesting witnesses, namely, P. W. 4 Angangjao Singh and P. W. 5 Tomal Singh. Both of them stated in their evidence that the deed was written in their presence by the scribe that it was read over to Chaoba Singh, who admitted the contents and then put his mark. They also stated that they signed the deed as attesting witnesses. In examination-in-chief none of them stated at what stage, whether before or after execution of the deed, they signed as witnesses. In cross-examination. P. W. 5. however, stated as follows : "Angangjao Singh signed first before me and then I signed. By that time, Chaoba Singh did not put his thumb mark. He signed later on." As, I have already pointed out, in view of the above statement of P. W. 5, the learned Munsiff held that the deed of gift was invalid for want of proper attestation. The learned District Judge reversed the said finding with the following observations : "The law does not say that an attesting witness should put his signature later on after seeing the executant put his signature or mark. To attest is to bear a witness to a fact and a witness who is present at the time of the execution and testifying the fact that the document was executed by the persons purporting to execute the deed is a sufficient attestation." 13. To attest is to bear a witness to a fact and a witness who is present at the time of the execution and testifying the fact that the document was executed by the persons purporting to execute the deed is a sufficient attestation." 13. The learned District Judge clearly erred in law in holding that the law does not require that an attesting witness should sign or put his mark later on after seeing the executant put his signature or mark. Attestation means the act of witnessing the execution of a document and subscribing the name of the witness in testimony of such fact. Mere writing of a document does not mean execution. Execution means signing or affixing the mark of the person executing the document. Unless the document is executed, that is, signed or marked by the executant, the question of bearing witness to the execution does not arise. It is, therefore, evident that to constitute valid attestation a document must be executed before it is signed by the attesting witness. This is the view expressed in Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad. AIR 1951 SC 477 : Pran Nath Sarkar v. Jadu Nath Sana. (1905) ILR 32 Cal 729 : Mt. Godawaribai v. Sampat, AIR 1923 Nag 45 and Dhana Mohammed v. Nastulla Molla, AIR 1926 Cal 637. The learned counsel for the respondent could not show me any authority in support of the view expressed by the District Judge. In respectful agreement with the view expressed in the cases mentioned above, I hold that the deed of gift was not properly attested when the witnesses signed the same before execution. 14. If there was no valid attestation, there was no valid gift within the meaning of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. That being the position, the decree of the learned District Judge must be set aside and I do accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the suit stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.