Mortgage execution through authorised signature upheld where statute did not require the mortgagor's personal autograph.

Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act was interpreted as not requiring the mortgagor's personal autograph, so a mortgage deed signed by an authorised person for an illiterate mortgagor could be effective. The majority reasoned that, unless the statute clearly excludes agency, an act done through an authorised agent is treated as the act of the principal, and that Section 123 did not control the meaning of Section 59 because the provisions address different subjects. The mortgagor's authority to the scribe and subsequent acknowledgment before registration were treated as supporting execution. A dissenting view held that the wording of Section 59 indicated personal signature was necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether a mortgage deed required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be signed by the mortgagor is valid when the mortgagor, being illiterate, authorises another person to sign on his behalf without a written power of attorney.

Analysis: The majority held that Section 59 does not expressly require an autograph or personal signature, and that the common law rule that an act done through an authorised agent is treated as the act of the principal applies unless the statute clearly excludes it. Section 123 of the same Act was treated as no safe guide to Section 59, because the two provisions deal with different subjects and the words "by or on behalf of" in Section 123 were regarded as insufficient to show that personal signature was intended in Section 59. Reliance was placed on the ordinary rule of statutory construction and on authorities holding that, where a statute merely requires a signature, signature by an authorised agent may be sufficient unless personal execution is made indispensable. The authority given to the scribe was also treated as effective, and the mortgagor's subsequent acknowledgment before registration was treated as supporting the execution.

Conclusion: The mortgage deed was validly executed by signature on behalf of the mortgagor through an authorised person, and personal signature by the mortgagor was not indispensable.

Dissenting Opinion: Aikman, J. held that the wording of Section 59, contrasted with Section 123, showed an intention to require personal signature by the mortgagor, and that the mortgage was invalid.

---