This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.86 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Jorliat in Title Suit No.5 of 1973. Plaintiff United Bank of India, Jorhat Branch has instituted a suit for realisation of Rs.29,213.41/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand two hundred thirteen and paise fourty one) from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant No.2 (respondent No.2) applied for a loan of Rs. 25,000/- for his M/s Sarudhan Fish Refrigeration & Ice House. The applica­tion was recommended by the Assistant Director, Cottage Industries, Jorhat and the plaintiff Bank sanctioned an amount of Rs. 22.000/- on 13.3.72 against hypothecation of plants, machineries etc and against mortgage of immovable property. The mortgage deed was executed by defendant/ respondent No.2 and his son defendant/respondent No. 3. The loan was to be repaid with 5% interest above the Reserve Bank interest at monthly rent. The defendant unable to i.e. pay the loan as per terms, executed a fresh set of documents including the promissory note on 3.7.75 promising to pay Rs.22,000/- with interest 5% above Reserve Bank rate subject to a minimum of 11% per annum. The defendant however failed to pay any amount and furnished returns of their business as required under the agreement. Notice demanding the repay­ment of an and interest were served upon the defendants but they failed to comply with. In the suit plaintiff claim for a decree of Rs. 29,893/-with cost and future interest and for sale of the hypothecated plants and machineries as on first charge and also for sale of mortgage land and houses. The respondent No.2 and 3 as defendant No.2 and 3 jointly filed written statement contesting the suit both on points of law and facts. They do not deny that the loan was taken from the plaintiff but they deny the due execution of promissory note dated 3.7.75, mortgage deed and other documents. The trial Court framed sever, issues. But in this appeal the appellant Bank mainly press the issue No.5 and the respondent based his arguments on issue No.6. In view of the matter, I take up for my consideration whether a mortgage decree is obtainable (issue No.5) and whether any mortgage decree or any other decree can be endorsed against defendant No.3 on the docum­ents filed by the plaintiff in the suit (issue No.6). In view of the matter, I take up for my consideration whether a mortgage decree is obtainable (issue No.5) and whether any mortgage decree or any other decree can be endorsed against defendant No.3 on the docum­ents filed by the plaintiff in the suit (issue No.6). The learned trial Court came to the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get a simple money decree against defendant No.l and 2 as regards the claim for a mortgage decree by selling the mortgaged property in enforcement of the mortgaged decree, the Court below came to the finding that the mortgage deed was not a valid deed of mortgage, therefore the defendant No.3 cannot be held liable for any claim and no decree can be passed against him. The plea taken by the plaintiff/appellant in this appeal is that the defend­ant No.2 and 3 executed the mortgage deed to secure the loan and the plaintiff proved the certified copy of the mortgage deed which was admitted without objection as Ext.H. The original deed which was said to be in the custody of the defendant, was called for by issuing notice to produce the original. But against such evidence the respondents did not adduce any evidence at all. On perusal of the written statement I find that the respondent/defendant denied the execution of mortgage deed in respect of the properties given in Schedule B of the plaint for realisation of the plaintiff's due. The respondents also denied the plaintiff's claim for the amount due to appellant including cost and interest and denied that there cannot be a mortgage decree in the present form and on the documents available as the properties on the defendant No.3 cannot be sold for any debt of the defendant No. 1 and 2. I have perused the impugned judgment, documents and evidence on record. The plaintiff/appellant has brought the suit on the basis of the promissory note and mortgage deed. But the plaintiff/appellant failed to produce the original copy of the mortgage deed alleged to be executed by the respondent No.2 and 3. The appellant, to prove the mortgage, produced a certified copy of the mortgage deed alleging that the original mortgage deed was with the defendants/respondents and filed an application at a belated stage of the suit and after closing of plaintiff's evidence to call for the mortgage deed from the defendants. The appellant, to prove the mortgage, produced a certified copy of the mortgage deed alleging that the original mortgage deed was with the defendants/respondents and filed an application at a belated stage of the suit and after closing of plaintiff's evidence to call for the mortgage deed from the defendants. In support of the execution of the mortgage deed an employee of the Sub Registrar's office was produced as PW 2 but this PW 2 failed to disclose who took away the mortgage document. The learned trial Court rejected the prayer on the ground that the certified copy of the mortgage deed could not be a proof of due execution of any mortgage and that attesting witnesses were not examined and I subscribe to the finding of the learned trial Court. Under section 59 of the Transfer of the Properties Act a mortgage can be affected by registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by atleast two witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides as follows : "68 : When a document is required by law to be attested, which shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attested witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of keeping evidence. " This section also provides that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, which has been registered in accordance with the provision of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purported to have been executed is specifically denied. Evidently the respondents in the written statement as well as in their evidence denied the execution of the mortgage deed. Evidently the respondents in the written statement as well as in their evidence denied the execution of the mortgage deed. A certified copy of a mortgage deed cannot be accepted as secondary evidence on the ground that the certified copy of a mortgage deed is not a public document This view of mine finds support in a decision of this Court in Narottan, Das & others vs. Md Masaddar AH Barbhuyan & others, (1991) (1) GLR 197 [1991 q) GLJ 113] wherein this Court held that "a 'public record' is one required by law to be kept, or necessary to be kept in the discharge of a duty imposed b law, or directed by law to serve as a memorial and evidence of something written, said or done. This Court further held that a sale deed is a private' document as after it is registered under the Registration Act, it is not kept in the Registration Office of the Sub-Registrar. Under section 61 (2) of the Registration Act, as soon as the registration is complete as is provided under the Registration Act the original sale deed shall be returned to the who presented the same for registration or to his nominee. Therefore the Sub Registrar is not required or is called upon to keep the sale deed at all V" any evidence under the law and as such the question of a public record °f a private document does not arise." In view of the above discussion, r hold that a private deed, even resist red, cannot be a public document and therefore the provision under section 77 of the Evidence Act is attracted. The mortgage deed, in this case, executed by the respondents and registered under the Registration Act is not a public record of a private document within section 74 (2) of the Evidence as the original has to be returned to the party under section 61 (2) of the Registration Act and therefore the certified copy (Annexure 8 ) cannot be valid document. In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.