1. Assuming that calling one attestor and merely proving the execution of the document and his attestation is not enough and that the fact of attestation of two witnesses has to be proved, we think the requirements of law are satisfied in this case.
2. D. W. 1 in this case, in the chief examination, proves his own attestation and the execution. He supplements his answer in the chief examination by his answer in the re-examination (which was not objected to) by proving the signature of the other attestor and the writer. The other attestor whose signature is proved is dead, but described himself on the document as an attestor. We must presume, now that his signature is proved, that he knew the law and described himself as an attestor because he saw the executant sign the document. This presumption can, of course, be rebutted by further cross-examination. The plaintiff did not care to ask for permission to further cross-examine the witness, for obvious reasons. Under these circumstances we must hold that the parties were content to leave the witness with the understanding that the other attestor's signature as an attestor has been proved. In Thanneru Gangayya v. Bommadevara Subbamma and Ors. : AIR1921Mad172(1) only the execution and the attestation of the attestor who has been called were proved and nothing was said about the other attestor. We therefore hold Ex. II has been properly proved.
3. The only other point argued before us is that the plaintiff was a purdanashin lady. This has been found against by the Courts below. The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of first respondent.