K. Harilal, J.

1. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in these Regular Second Appeal is, have not the courts below erred in relying on the evidence, other than the evidence adduced under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), where any one of the twin requirements under Section 70(1) of the Act was not satisfied.

2. Heard Sri. T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Since the parties in these appeals are common and the subject matter and the matters in dispute are same, both appeals are heard together and disposed of, accordingly.

4. The facts necessary for the determination of the substantial question of law alone need be narrated in these appeals.

5. The common appellant in both these appeals is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 413/2000 and the first defendant in O.S. No. 359/2000 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. O.S. No. 413/2000 was a suit for setting aside or cancelling Ext.BI Will allegedly executed by (late) Fr. Mathew Nadackal, who is the brother of the plaintiffs father. O.S. No. 359/2000 was a sui