A scribe can be treated as an attesting witness if he had seen the Executant signing the document.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and Decree in O. S. No. 234 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur dated 28-02-1985, this appeal is preferred by the first defendant in so far as the Judgment and decree went against him. Aggrieved by that part of the judgment which went against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs preferred the Cross-objections.

( 2 ) THE dispute in the suit pertains to the property of one late Pulipati kotaiah. The appellant in A. S. No. 1750 of 1985 is the son of the said Kotaiah. The second respondent is the wife of the pre-deceased son of said Kotaiah, by name Pulipati Rama Lingaiah and the first respondent is the married daughter of the said Rama Lingaiah. Both of them, as plaintiffs filed the abovementioned suit O. S. No. 234 of 1979. The respondents 3 to 5 are the alienees of some of the properties which fell to the share of late Pulipati Kotaiah at the time of partition between him and his sons in the year 1965 evidenced by Ex. A-3 dated 20th July, 1965, which is a registered document.

( 3 ) THE case of the respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) is that there was a registered partition between (sic. under) Ex,a-3 dated 20th July, 1965 under which the joint family properties of late Pulipati Kotaiah were partitioned between Kotaiah, the appellant herein and respondents 1 and 2 representing the branch of the predeceased son of Kotaiah and the wife of said Kotaiah by name Mahalaxmamma who died during the pendency of the suit and was the second defendant in the suit. Admittedly the suit schedule properties were the properties which fell to the share of late Pulipati Kotaiah at the time of the abovementioned partition. The plaintiffs alleged that Kotaiah died intestate during some time in the year 1970 and that the plaintiffs are entitled for l/3rd share in the said property along with the appellant herein and the deceased second defendant as Class-I heir of late Pulipati Kotaiah. The plaintiffs further alleged that for some time after the death of the said Pulipati kotaiah, both the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 i. e. , the son and wife of kotaiah lived together and the first defendant/the appellant herein was managing the property and from time to time paying 1 /3rd share of the profits arising out of the said property to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further asserted that they reliably came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 were concocting false and frivolous documents to claim the entire property of late Pulipati kotaiah and were creating false documents creating encumbrances on some of the items of the said property and hence the suit.

( 4 ) THE defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit The first defendant filed an elaborate written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant during her life time and after the death of the second defendant, an additional written statement was filed by the first defendant claiming to be a legatee of the second defendant. The substance of the case of the defendants is that late Pulipati Kotaiah executed a Will on 4-4-1970 (Ex. B-1), whereunder he bequeathed items 1,2, 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule property in favour of his wife for her life and the vested remainder of the properties was granted to the first defendant. With regard to item No. 3 of the plaint schedule property, the first defendant claimed that the said property was bequeathed exclusively in favour of the first defendant. Kotaiah died some time in the month of november, 1970, and thereafter, the defendants took possession of the properties and were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. The averments in the plaint that subsequent to the death of the Pulipati Kotaiah, the plaintiffs lived jointly with defendants 1 and 2 for some time was denied and also the averment that the first defendant-appellant was managing the properties and paying l/3rd of the profits arising out of the property to the plaintiff.

( 5 ) AFTER the death of the second defend