The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to consider the evidence of witnesses in determining the validity of a will and the requirements for attesting witnesses.

( 1 ) BOTH these matters -the revision petition and the Miscellaneous appeal-arise out of the same proceeding.

( 2 ) ONE Huchamma had filed OS No. 5 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge, bellary, against respondents 1 and 2 for a declaration that the gift deed dt. 12-2-1970 got executed from her, was obtained by fraud and coercion and as such, the same be cancelled and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant interfering with the suit 'a' Sch. properties. During the pendency of the suit, Huchamma died on 6 1-1973 leaving a registered will dt. 11-2 1969 bequeathing all her properties to the revision petitioner. The petitioner filed IA No. II in the trial Court for bringing him on record as the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma on the basis of the aforesaid will left by her. There was a delay in filing the application IA 2, therefore, an application IA no. 1 was also filed for setting aside the abatement. The lower Court has held that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and for setting aside the abatement; but however, with regard to the question as to whether the petitioner can be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma, it has been held by the Court' below that the will claimed to have been executed by the deceased Huchamma is not a valid will therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered to be the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma On the basis of this finding, the Court below has rejected both, the applications. As against the order rejecting the application to bring the petitioner on record as the legal representative of the deceased Huchamma, the petitioner has preferred the top noted civil revision petition and as against the order refusing to set aside the abatement, as the said order is appealable and the appeal lay to the Dist. Court, the petitioner has preferred the Misc. A No. 103 of 1976 before the Dist. Court. As both the cases related to the same subject, the aforesaid appeal being the Misc A No. 103 of 1976 has been withdrawn from the file of the Dist. Judge, bellary. Accordingly, both the matters are heard together.

( 3 ) THE lower Court has held that the will in question is not valid because of the following reasons ;"no doubt it is in the evidence of pw 2 who has identified the executant before the Sab Registrar that he saw huchamma put her LT mark to the will at Exs. P3 (a), (b) and (c) and when huchamma admitted the correctness of recital of the deed when they were read over to Narayanappa. If he was really present at the time of execution of the will, it is sot explained why be has not attested the same. What the law required is that the will shall be attested by 2 or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix the mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will in the presence and by the direction of the testator. I have already pointed out that PW 2 is not an attestor to the will and however much he speaks to the execution of the will it is no legal evidence. It is the attesting witnesses who should have seen the testator sign the will. Though at this stage, the validity of the will cannot be gone into in detail, the materials on record are sufficient to hold that there is no valid will executed by Huchamma and the petitioner cannot be considered as legal representative of Huchamma on the strength of the said invalid will ex. P 3. Under these circumstances, ia 2 is liable to be rejected and accordingly IA 2 filed by the petitioner under or. 22, R. 3 of CPC is hereby dismissed". Thus, the finding of the Court below that the will in question is not valid, is based on the ground that PW 2 cannot be considered to be an attesting witness and as such, the will is not attested by two witnesses, therefore, it is not valid. One budan Sab has signed the will as a witness and just below that PW 4 the scribe of the will, has also signed. PW 2 Anjanappa has signed belo