The will was not conclusively proved by the attesting witnesses. The primary attesting witness, who scribed the Will and claimed to be an attesting witness, failed to establish that he knew the testatrix personally or that she understood the contents and significance of the Will at the time of execution. Additionally, there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements regarding the execution and attestation process, including whether the testatrix put her thumb impression in their presence and whether the Will was read over to her.

Furthermore, the evidence suggested that the attestation did not meet the legal requirements, as at least one attesting witness did not affirmatively prove the due execution of the Will. The court also considered other parameters such as the loss of the original Will, the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, and the credibility of secondary evidence like Xerox copies and certified copies, which were found to be unreliable.

Overall, the verification of the Will relied on multiple parameters, including the credibility and consistency of witnesses' testimonies, the circumstances of execution, and the evidence of registration and possession of the Will, rather than solely on the attesting witnesses' testimony. The court ultimately concluded that the burden of proof had not been satisfactorily discharged by the propounder, and the Will was not duly proved.