The execution and attestation of a will must be proved in accordance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and the evidence of one attesting witness is sufficient to prove the execution of a will, but that witness must speak to all the elements of Section 63(c), including the testator's signature or mark, the witnesses' attestation after seeing the testator sign or acknowledging the signature, and the witnesses' signatures in the presence of the testator.

A. SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question that I am called upon to answer in this second appeal is whether the execution and attestation of a will dated 16/05/1947 are proved.

( 2 ) THE facts are simple: The suit was brought by the first respondent for declaration of his title to and possession of the site described in the plaint schedule after ejecting the defendants therefrom and for recovery of Rs. 20. 00 towards the value of bricks removed by the defendants therefrom and also for profits. The plaintiff alleged that the site belonged to Karri Somulu. Under a will dated 16/05/1947 he bequeathed the site to his wife and foster daughter and after their death to the children of the foster daughter. after the death of the testator, the wife and daughter were in possession and after their death, the latters daughter sold it to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 14/07/1964. But, in July, 1964 defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into the site, put up a hut thereon and admitted into its possession. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE first defendant denied the execution of the will by Somulu and denied its genuineness and validity also. He denied that Somulu fostered a daughter. In fact, the site did not belong to Somulu. In a partition with his brother, the site fell to the share of Thudupulu, grandfather of the first defendant. Ever since then Thudupulu and his successors were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the first defendant also required title by adverse possession. the alleged and nominal one. The alleged trespass was false.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 while contending that they had nothing to do with the site adopted the other contentions raised by the first defendant.

( 5 ) THE Trial Court held that prior to 1964 Somulu and his family had been in possession of the site. He had title thereto. But, the first defendant came in to possession of it in 1964 illegally. But, unfortunately neither the execution not attestation of the will said to have been executed by Somulu on 16th of May, 1947 marked as Ex. A-1 was proved in accordance with law. Consequently a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the site and to its possession could not be granted. The appellate Court held that Somulu fostered a daughter and he had the title and possession of the site. Since it was a registered will and there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding it, the lower appellate Court thought that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the execution and attestation of the will. Accordingly, it set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The first defendant has brought this appeal, impleading not only the plaintiff as the first respondent but also defendants 2 and 3 as respondents 2 and 3. The second appeal was dismissed as against the second defendant by order of this Court dated 23-10-1972.

( 6 ) IN view of the findings of the fact of the Courts below, the only point pressed before me for the appellant is that there is no proof on record to the execution and attestation of Ex. A-1, as required by Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. It is argued that though there were two attestator on the will only one of them was examined as P. W. 1 and neither the other attestator nor the scribe was examined. In regard to the execution and attestation there is no other evidence excepting that of P. W. 1 and his evidence is wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirements of proof as enunciated in the aforesaid provisions of Law.

( 7 ) IT is common ground that there is no evidence on record, other than that of P. W. 1 which throws any light on the execution and attestation of the will. So, one has to look to the evidence of P. W. 1 alone for finding out proof of the will.

( 8 ) THE attack on the will is two-fold. One is that even the executors actual execution of the will is not proved, for there are no signatures or thumb marks of the executor under the body of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document