PATTAMMAL AND ANOTHER Vs. KANNIAMMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. They have filed the suit for a declaration of their title on the basis of a Will dated 25 -1 -1966 executed by their father. The first defendant who is a sister of the plaintiffs claimed the property in its entirety under a document styled as a settlement deed dated 25 -5 -1955. The main question for consideration before the courts below was whether the Will Ex. A. 1. has been proved to have been duly attested. Though the trial Court held that the Will has been proved to be valid and enforceable, the lower appellate Court held that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 who are the attesters of the document is not enough to prove the execution and attestation of the Will. In that view, the suit was dismissed.

(2.) P . W. 1 one of the attesters to the document in the chief -examination stated that the testator was in a sound disposing state of mind when he executed the document. He did not speak to his attestation of the Will or by P. W. 3 or the executant signing the document in his presence specifically in the chief -examination. In cross -examination, while he was answering the questions as to what happened in the Sub -Registrar's office, he had stated that he had been to the Sub -Registrar's office when it was registered. He further stated that the plaintiffs also had come to the Registrar's office. After this statement, we find in the evidence a statement to the following effect: "P. W. 3 attested the document I also attested." The learned counsel for the first defendant contended that in the sequence in which this evidence is given it should be understood that P. W. 1 is speaking about his being an identifying witness before the Sub -Registrar and this evidence cannot be treated as proof of P. W. 1 signing the Will itself as an attester. Though this argument is plausible on the language used in the evidence. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. If really it was intended to be a statement that he was an identifying witness, the recording of the evidence will be that he was also an identifying witness before the Sub -Registrar. But on the other hand, it is stated in Tamil as follows; (Omitted Tamil matter - Ed).

(3.) SECTION 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as follows -