018-NLR-NLR-V-17-CAROLIS-v.-BASTIAN.pdf
( 62 )
■ 1 —
CAROIilS v. BASTIAN.
211—D. C. Malar a, 5,349.
A Si. F. Jayawardene and Mendis, for the record defendant,appellant.
Allan Drieberg and Balasingham, for the respondents.
Cut. adv. vult.
February 25, 1913. Pereira J.—
His Lordship set out the facts, and after discussing the evidence continued:—
As regards deed P 3, the second defendant denies execution, and executionby him has not been proved, in terms of sections 68 and 69 of the EvidenceOrdinance. It is contended that, inasmuch as the second defendant has'executed the deed by drawing a cross or mark on it, it need not be proved interms of section 69 of the Evidence Ordinance, but it has already been heldby this Court that the combined effect of section 69 of the Evidence Ordinanceand section 3, sub-section (17), of – the Interpretation Ordinance, 1901, is to.render it necessary to prove even such a deed in the manner required bysection 69 of the Evidence Ordinance. In an Indian case (Abdulla Paru v.Gannibat, I. L. B. 11 Bom. 690) it was held that where a notary's signaturewas proved, his statement in the attestation clause' would be evidence. Idoubt that thisv case would apply to us. Anyway, in the present instance thenotary has stated in the attestation clause that the second defendant wasnot known to him.
I would set aside tho judgment appealed from, and enter judgment declaringthe second defendant' entitled to lot C and for a partition of A and B, on thefooting that the second defendant is entitled to half and the plaintiff and thefirst defendant (in equal shares) to the other half. I think that the appellantis entitled to his costs in both Courts.
‘Ennis J.-*- I agree.