G. Sasidharan, J

O.P. No. 138 of 1986 was filed by the respondents in this appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Trichur for granting letters of administration in respect of a Will alleged to have been executed by Kakkassery Ippuru on 8.5.1967. Since the appellant who was the respondent in the above Original Petition raised the contention that Ippuru did not execute the Will as alleged by the respondents, the Original Petition was converted as a suit, a contentious proceeding and it was tried and disposed of by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge found that Ext. Al Will was executed by Ippuru and directed granting of letters of administration in respect of the Will in favour of the first respondent.

2. Kunhiri was the first wife of Ippuru and they had a son by name Vareed and a daughter, the 6th respondent Kunhitti alias Molutty. After the death of the first wife, Ippuru married the 7th respondent and in that marriage, Ippuru had two daughters, Mariyamma and Padmini alias Cherichi, the appellant. Vareed died on 8.1.1986 and the first respondent is his wife and respondents 2 to 5 are his children.

3. Ext. Al Will is stated to have been executed by Ippuru on 8.5.1967. Execution of Ext. Al Will by Ippuru is denied by the appellant. The contentions that Ippuru was suffering from Paralysis and that he was not of sound mind and was not in a position to take care of himself and that even if a Will was executed by Ippuru, it would have been executed under coercion and undue influence exerted by the legatee were taken up by the appellant. A suit, O.S. No. 220 of 1986 was filed by the present appellant in the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad for partition. Then the respondents in this appeal filed the petition for grant of letters of administration. As per the provisions of Ext. Al Will, items 1 to 3 are seen to have been given to the 6th respondent, the daughter of . Ippuru in his first marriage. On reserving life estate in favour of the second wife, the 7th respondent, items 4 to 7 were given to Vareed. There is also a direction in the Will that Vareed had to give Rs. 2000/- each to the 8th respondent and the appellant who are the daughters of Ippuru in his second marriage.

4. The respondents have a case that the appellant sent a notice demanding partition of the properties which belonged to Ippuru to which respondents 1 to 5 sent a reply and that the appellant got possession of the original Will from the 6th respondent by saying that the Will had to be shown to her husband and thereafter she did not return the Will to the 6,th respondent. It is stated that after getting possession of the Will, the appellant filed O.S.220 of 1986 for partition of the properties. Thereafter the petition for granting letters of administration was filed in the District Court, Trichur.

5. This is a case in which the original Will is not forthcoming. There were two attesters to the Will Krishnan Nambidi and Varghese. The Will was a registered one and Ext. Al is the attested copy of the Will. It is seen from Ext. Al that the above two persons were attesters to the Will. There is no dispute that before taking evidence in the case, the above two attestors died. The first respondent who gave evidence as PW.1 said that both the attestors died and that version was not challenged by the appellant. The son of Krishnan Nambidi who was an attestor to the Will was examined as PW. 3 and he said that his father Nambidi died in June, 1988. At the time of taking evidence in the case, the Will could not be proved by examining any of the attestors. So what the respondent did was to try to prove the execution of Ext. Al Will by other evidence which is permissible under law.

6. The Will was registered in the house of Ippuru. The Sub Registrar went to the

house of Ippuru for the purpose of registering the Will on the request of Ippuru. PW. 2 is one of the identifying witnesses to the Will. He is a taxi driver and it is stated that it was in his taxi tha