DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

Even though several contentions and issues are raised by the respective counsel appearing for the parties in this appeal, the core issue boils down to the validity of a Will claimed to have been executed by a certain Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai, who is the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 and the grandfather of defendants 6 to 9.

2. On one hand the defendants maintain that the Will executed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai is valid and that it has been properly executed, while on the other, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the Will is not proper and that it is vitiated by questionable actions at the hands of the defendants and they even go to the extent of alleging that the Will is forged or created subsequent to the death of Gopalakrishna Pillai.

3. As we indicated above, though there are other issues raised in this appeal, we notice that at this stage of the proceedings the only one that is really now live for our consideration is as to whether the Will in question is valid or otherwise. We say this because, even though contentions are seen made regarding the nature of acquisition of the properties by Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai and questions raised regarding his right and title over the same, it is now virtually admitted by all parties in this appeal that the properties involved herein are self acquired by Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai and that he is competent and eligible to execute a Will regarding the same. The sole issue, therefore, that survives for our consideration at this stage is as to whether the Will marked as Ext.B2 is valid or otherwise and whether it has been executed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai under the Mandate of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Act for brevity)

4. The most unexpendable facts, as would be necessary for the disposal of this appeal, is that the plaint schedule properties were settled by Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai as per the Will, namely Ext.B2 dated 10.01.1985, in favour of the defendants and the singular allegation of the plaintiff is that this division is grossly unequal among the beneficiaries and therefore, that the Will is suspect since such iniquitous sharing could never have been intended by their father, the testator. According to them, the Will was not executed by their father Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, but that it was created by the defendants using papers that were either left signed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai when he was alive or that it was fabricated by them subsequent to the death of Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai with the help of the persons who were shown as attesting witnesses in the Will. It is the singular case of the plaintiffs in the suit that the Will in question is not genuine and they, therefore, prayed that it be set aside and to have the properties equally partitioned.

5. The defendants au contraire contested these allegations of the plaintiffs asserting that Ext.B2 Will was executed by their father, validly and properly attested by two witnesses who were examined before the court below as DWs 2 and 6. We must notice first off that DW2 is defendant No.2, one of the children of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai. The narration of facts, as given by the defendants in their written statement is that on 10.01.1985 Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai was slightly unwell and that he summoned defendant No.2 to his house. On the second defendant reaching the house of his father, it is alleged that Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai took out the Will, that was already prepared by him, and asked defendant No.2 to write certain words in attestation of the said Will. The effect of the attestation, that the second defendant says his father asked him to write, was that the “Will is attested by two witnesses in his presence and that he has seen that the witnesses signed the same.” The words used in the attestation are in first person, but it is not signed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, even though two signatures are shown under it to be that of the attesting witnesses, nam