principal money secured by which is Rs. 100 or upwards, can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. A similar provision is made as regards gifts of immoveable property; but no such provision as to attestation by witnesses as regards leases and other transfers of immoveable property is to be found in the Transfer of Property Act. Vide secs. 54 and 107 of Act IV of 1882. Exceptions to the Rule.-(a). Sec. 90 post provides for the presumption of the authenticity of the signatures to a document 30 years old and consequently modifies the requirements of this section. (b). According to English law, when a document is in the possession of the adverse party, who refuses to produce it after notice, the attesting witness need not be called to prove the execution of such a document. It seems to us that the requirements of this section may be dispensed with in the case of documents, the contents of which may be proved by secondary evidence under the provisions contained in secs. 65 and 66 ante. (c). This section does not affect the Merchants Shipping Act, 17 and 18 Vic., c. 104. Proof where no attesting witness found. 69. If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. Signature. No definition of the word 'signature' is given in the Act, but the context sufficiently implies that the attestation of the attesting witness must be in his own handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document must be in the handwriting of that person; consequently the word signature cannot include and apply to the affixing of a mark. No witness can, with any degree of certainty, identify the marks made by another person. It is therefore not reasonable to suppose that when the witnesses and the executants of an instrument are mere marksmen, and when none of them can be found to depose to the execution of such an instrument, the bare statement of a third party to the effect that he can identify the marks on the instrument as marks made by its executants and witnesses should be considered as sufficient proof of the fact of its execution. No doubt the definition of signature contained in sec. 3 of the Registration Act, III of 1877, includes and applies to the affixing of a mark and the word signed in sec. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code has been defined to include 'marked' when the person making the mark is unable to write his name; but a reference to cl. 3, section 50 of the Indian Succession Act, X of 1865, and to the cases decided under it, shows that the word 'sign' in that clause does not include a mark-signature. (Vide Nitye Gopal v. Nagendra Nath Mittra, I. L. R. 11 Cal. 429, and Fernandez v. Alves, I. L. R. 3 Bom. 382). 70. The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execu Admission execution of by party to attested document. tion as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. Under the present section, the party's admission is sufficient proof of the execution of a document as against himself. The English rule on the subject is precisely the opposite. Vide Best, 529. Section 22 ante excludes oral admission of the contents of a document, this section allows oral admission of the execution of a document. The two sections are not conflicting. 71. If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence. Proof when attesting witness denies the execu tion. Vide notes to the previous sections. Proof of docu 72. An attested document not rement not required quired by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested. by law to be at tested. Vide notes to sec. 68 ante. Where the witnesses to a deed of sale are alive, their testimony is not the only evidence by which it can be established. It may be established by any other evidence--Daitari Mahanti v. Juggobundhu Mahanti, 23 W. R. 293. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. 73. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. The English Law.-The English law, as it existed before 1854, did not allow the witness or even the jury, except under certain special circumstances, actually to compare two writings with each other to ascertain whether both were written by the same person. The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 and 18 Vic., c. 125, introduced as a remedy a middle course in civil cases. Sec. 27 enacted that, "Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to, the satisfaction of the Judge to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may be submitted to the Court and jury as evidence of the genuineness, or otherwise, of the writing in dispute." By sec. 103, this enactment applied to every Court of Civil Jurisdiction; and the 28 Vic., c. 18, secs. 1 and 8 extended its provisions to criminal cases. Different modes of proving Handwriting.-A man's signature and handwriting may be proved: 1st-By direct evidence of the signature or of the writing; 2nd-By an expert who can compare handwritings (vide sec. 45 ante); 3rd-By a witness who is acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is supposed to be writer of the document in question (vide sec. 47 ante); and 4th-By a comparison made by the Court. Unsatisfactory Character of the Evidence of Comparison of Handwriting.-Evidence of comparison of handwriting is often extremely dangerous. "Many persons write alike, having the same teacher, writing in the same office, being of the same family,—all these produce similitude in handwriting, which, in common cases and by common observers, is not liable to be distinguished. The handwriting of the same person varies at different periods of life: it is affected by age, by infirmity, by habit."* It is to be remembered that men of business acquire a mechanical style of writing which obliterates all natural characteristics, unless the instances where the character is so strongly individual as not to be modified into the general mass. Men are also taught to write after one model, and we often find that the style of handwriting is hereditary. Standing alone such evidence is worth little, in a criminal case almost nothing-its real value being as adminiculum of testimony, but it may become, slight evidence though it is, cogent proof, if it is allowed to go uncontradicted. (a). A comparison of signatures is a mode of ascertaining the truth which ought to be used with very great care and caution-Srimaty Phodi Bibi v. Govind Chunder Roy, 22 W. R. 272. (b). It may be generally said that no two real signatures of any person accustomed to write freely ever correspond exactly, there is always some degree of diversity between them. And in making the comparison between two real signatures, the opinion of people would differ as the amount of apparent diversity. The judgment may well enough be led astray as to the erroneous opinion that the diversity which is apparent, is inconsistent with the identity of the two signatures. Vide the observations of Phear J., in Lallah Jha v. Musst. Bibi Tullebmatool Tuhra, 21 W. R. 436. (c). Finding of forgery on comparison of handwriting only was disapproved of in Kurali Persad Misra v. Anantram Hajra, 16 W. R. (P. C.) 16. (d). The fact that a memorandum bore a similarity to the proved handwriting of the accused was held not to be sufficient evidence to prove that the memorandum was in the handwriting of the accused— Nobin Krishna Mukerji v. Rasik Lal Laha, I. L. R. 10 Cal. 1047. Proved to the satisfaction of the Court.-Where certain ryots swore that they got their pottahs from the hands of the person who professed to sign them, this was held under this section as 'proving to the satisfaction of the Court' that the signatures were those of the lessor-Tara Persaud Tangee v. Luchee Naryan Paurai, 21 W. R. 6. * Vide R. v. Mr. Justice Johnson, 29 How. St. Tr., 475. Public docu ments. Public Documents. 74. The following documents are public documents : 1. Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts (i) Of the sovereign authority; (ii) Of official bodies and tribunals; and 2. Public records kept in British India of private documents. Definition of Public Documents.-Public documents have been defined as the "acts of public functionaries, in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Departments of Government, including, under this general head, the transactions which official persons are required to enter in books or registers, in the course of their public duties, and which occur within the circle of their own personal knowledge and observation."-1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 470. Public Documents.—(a). Jummabundi.—A jummabundi prepared by a Deputy Collector, while engaged in the settlement of land under Reg. VII of 1822, is a public document within the meaning of this section-Taru Patur v. Abinash Chunder Dutt, I. L. R. 4 Cal. 79. This case was doubted by their Lordships in the case of Ram Chundra Sao v. Bunseedhar Naik, I. L. R. 9 Cal. 741. Garth C. J. remarked: "I think it would be extremely dangerous to admit evidence of this kind under the guise of public documents. Such papers are merely prepared by the Government as landlords for the purposes of their estate, and they appear to me to be no more evidence against the tenants of that estate than similar documents would be, prepared by other landlord." Their Lordships, who decided the case of Akshya Kumar Dutt v. Shama Charan Patitanda, I. L. R. 16 Cal. 586, also shared in these doubts. (b). Letters.-Letters between district authorities are public documents forming a record of the acts of public authorities, and as |