ORDER 1. The only question raised in this special leave is that since the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents attested the sale deed, Ex. A-2 on favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest it must be held that he did so with the knowledge of the contents of Ex. A-2. Ex. A-2 undoubtedly recites that purchasers thereunder shall have a right of way through the respondents land. Reliance for the above proposition is placed on (Kandasami Pillai v. Nagalinga Pillai [ILR (1912) 36 Mad 564 : 16 IC 30] were the learned Judge stated the principle thus : "I am also of opinion that having regard to the ordinary course of conduct of Indians in this Presidency, attestation by a person who has, or claims, any interest in the property, covered by the document must be treated prima facie as a representation by him that the title and other facts relating to title recited in the document are true and will not be disputed by him as against the obligee under the document." 2. It is also brought to our notice that in a subsequent case, the same learned Judge made the following further observations : "I may respectfully say that, in my pretty long experience as a Judicial Officer, if the attestor of the document has an existing interest in the property dealt with in the document, it has been always the case that this attestation has been taken in order to bind him as to the correctness of the recitals therein." The learned Judge further pointed out : "On the whole, I see no sufficient reason to recede from the opinion I expressed in Kandasami Pillai v. Rangaswami Nainar, that a presumption is raised, when an adult man of full mental capacity attests a deed and when such a man has admittedly a tangible interest in the property affected by the deed, that this attestation has been taken as a proof of his consent to and knowledge of the correctness of the recitals in the deed and it lies upon the person, who contends that such an attestor did not know all the recitals in the deed and did not consent to the alienation made by the deed, to prove the contrary." 3. It is stated by Mr Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said view has since been followed consistently in several decisions of the Madras High Court. 4. The observations of Sadasiva Ayyar, J. in Kandasami [ILR (1912) 36 Mad 564 : 16 IC 30] only say that in case of attestation by a person having interest in the subject-matter of the document of transfer must be deemed to have affirmed the contents of document, prima facie. In other words, the rule stated is not a presumption of law nor an irrebuttable presumption. It is more in the nature of presumption of fact, whose efficacy and evidentiary value depends upon the facts of the given case. 5. In the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge refers to another decision in Parasuram Mudaliar v. Devaki Bai [1979 TLNJ 326] which seems to accord with the view expressed by us herein. 6. Coming to the facts of this case, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was an illiterate person. He put his thumb impression as an attestor on Ex. A-2. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge held that unless it is established that the recitals in the documents were read out and explained to the said person, he cannot be deemed to have assented to them. We cannot say that the learned Judge was not right in taking the said view in the circumstances of this case. We see no reasons to interfere in the matter. Dismissed. Court Master