Introduction  

• This case is the landmark judgment on Section 3 (Attestation) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.  
• In the present case it was held that the object of attestation is to protect the executant from being required to execute a document by application of force, fraud or undue influence. 
• But any other party who is not a party to a deed may attest the document no matter if he is a person interested in the transaction. 

Facts 

• The mortgage deed in question was executed by the Kumar Harish Chandra Deo (appellant) in favor of Jagannath Debata (respondent no. 2) in April 1945, for consideration of Rs.15,000.  
• The appellant undertook to repay the amount advanced together with interest within one year of the execution of the deed.  
  • The appellant, however, failed to do so.  
• Banshi Dhar Mohanty (respondent no. 1), therefore instituted the suit out of which this appeal arose.  
• The Jagannath Debata challenged the right of respondent no. 1 to institute the suit and claimed that it was he who had advanced the consideration. 
• His claim was, however, rejected by the Trial Court. 
  • Trial Court passed the decree in favor of Banshidhar Mohanty. 
• Aggrieved from the decree of trial court Kumar Harish Chandra Deo alone filed an appeal in the High Court, however his appeal was rejected by the High Court.  
• Later, he raised an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.  

Issues Involved 

• Whether the mortgage deed, upon which the suit of respondent was based validly attested? 
• Whether respondent no. 1 was entitled to institute the suit? 

Observation 

• The court held that the deed was validly attested. 
• A person who takes benefit under the transaction or who provides consideration for a transaction is entitled to institute a suit concerning that transaction.  
  • Thus, where a transaction is a mortgage, the actual lender of the money is entitled to sue. Hence, Respondent No. 1 was entitled to sue. 
• The Court upheld the decree given by the High Court and dismissed the appeal. 

Conclusion  

• A suit can be instituted by a person who takes benefit under any transaction or who provides consideration for a transaction. 
• Thus, where a transaction is a mortgage, the actual lender of the money is entitled to sue. 

Notes 
Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 - “attested”, in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.