ATMA RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Manish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vatsal Srivastava appearing for respondent No. 6.

(2.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the attesting witness Sattu did not state in his deposition that the testator of the Will signed in his presence and in presence of the other attesting witnesses and that the two attesting witnesses put their signatures on the Will in the presence of the testator and, as such, the attestation of the Will is not established as provided by Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act and the lower appellate Court as well as the Board of Revenue has committed manifest error of law in recording the finding that the attestation of the Will was duly proved.

(3.) In reply, it has been contended that the lower appellate Court after analysing the deposition of Sattu, one of the attesting witness has recorded a finding of fact that the attestation of the Will was duly established and the said finding has been affirmed in the second appeal and the findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence is not liable to be interfered by this Court in writ jurisdiction.