JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-This appeal by special leave is by the defendant questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for possession of the suit properties comprised of agricultural land and a house as owner under the will said to have been executed by Honaji Dama Kadam. The trial court, accepting the will on the basis of evidence placed on record, decreed the suit. The District Judge in the Regular First Appeal set aside the decree passed by the trial court. The High Court in the second appeal by the impugned judgment and decree set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

2. The contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the will in question was not proved as required by law, having regard to Section 63 of Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the attestation of will by two witnesses was not established; the High Court committed an error in treating the scribe as an attesting witness when he did not sign as animo attestendi.