The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper execution and attestation of wills, mortgages, and gifts as per the statutory provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Transfer of Property Act, ultimately influencing the court's decision to dismiss the suit.

1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether Exhibit Al, the will produced in the case, has been sufficiently proved to be duly executed.

2. The facts we only state in the very smallest compass. The suit is for redemption of 2 mortgages executed on 11-6-1937 and 13-9-1938 by one Devarajan in favour of his first wife, the 1st defendant. The 8th defendant is his second wife. The 9th defendant is their son. The 7th defendant is the father of the 8th defendant. On 29-4-1949 Devarajan executed a will bequeathing all his assets in favour of defendants 7 to 9. By the later will, Ex Al, he cancelled the earlier will and bequeathed his assets to the plaintiff, who is his brother, and defendants 8 and 9. It was on the strength of Ex. Al that the suit for redemption was filed after Devarajan's death. The 1st defendant contended that Ex. Al was vitiated by fraud and that it was invalid According to defendants 7 to 9 also Ex. Al was invalid. They said that as Ex. Al was invalid the earlier will dated 29-4-1949 took effect after Devarajan's death.

3. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the Munsiff, Ponnani before whom it was filed. That decision was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam. In the Second Appeal filed before the court our learned brother, Raghavan J, confirmed the decisions of the lower courts Our learned brother also granted leave to the 1st defendant to appeal. That is how the matter has now come up before us.

4. The plaintiff in the suit can succeed only on proper proof of execution of the will, Ex. Al. It was on 28-9-1950 that Ex, Al was executed. At the foot of the last page of it Devarajan's signature appears along with the signatures of 2 attestors, Karunakara Panicker and Kuttyman. Kuttyman was examined as pw. 3. He denied having seen Devarajan and Karunakara Panicker sign in Ex. Al. He did not say that he had received from Devarajan a personal acknowledgment of his signature. He was declared hostile and allowed to be cross-examined by the plaintiff. Karunakara Panicker was not examined in the case. Ex. Al was registered on 30-9-1950 by pw.1, the Sub Registrar. It was Devarajan who produced it before pw.1 for registration. Two witnesses, Kuttan and Hydrose Kutty, identified Devarajan when he produced Ex.

Al for registration. After Devarajan and the identifying witnesses signed on the back of the first page of Ex. Al, pw.1 also signed there. The 2 identifying witnesses were not examined in the case. pw.1 deposed that Devarajan admitted in his presence the execution of Ex. Al. He also deposed that he and the identifying witnesses signed in the presence of Devarajan. Finally he said that the identifying witnesses only identified Devarajan and that they put their signatures in the document only in token of that. From this state of the evidence can it be taken that Ex. Al has been sufficiently proved in the case?

5. There is conflict of opinion as to whether the signature of the Registering Officer affixed at the time of registration is vaild attestation of the execution of the document. Some of the reported decisions bearing on the matter relate to wills and the others to documents executed under the Transfer of Property Act, mainly mortgages and gifts.

6. Before dealing with the reported decisions it is necessary to note the relevant statutory provisions about the matter. S.63 of the Indian Succession Act which deals with the execution of wills, reads as follows:

"63. Every testator, not being a soldier employed id an expedition or engaged in actual warfare or an airman so employed or engaged or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

(b) The signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it