The execution of a will must be duly proved in accordance with the requirements of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Registration Act, 1908.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment of N. S. Ramaswami J. in A. S. No. 435 of 1969 confirming the decision of the Sub Court, Coimbatore in O. S. No. 345 of 1964.

2. The suit O. S. No. 345 of 1964 has been filed by one Rathnammal, the first respondent herein, for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit properties consisting of a house in Coimbatore and certain lands in Peria, Godiveri village in Gobichettipalayam taluk. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the children of the first defendant through his wife Annammal who died in December 1952. The suit properties belonged to Annammal. On the ground that Annammal died intestate the plaintiff has claimed her one-fifth share in the suit properties. The fourth defendant who is another daughter of Annammal also claimed her one-fifth share by paying the necessary court-fee on her written statement. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died. Thereafter the plaintiff and the fourth defendant each claimed one-fourth share.

3. Defendants 2 and 3 who are the sons of Annamal had set up a will dated 15-2-1952 as the last will and testament left by Annammal. Under that will Annanunal' s two daughters, namely, the plaintiff and the fourth defendant not only a sum of Rs. 1,000 each and all the other properties are to be taken by defendants 2 and 3 with a life interest to the first defendant. The plaintiff has questioned the validity, truth and genuineness of the said will and her specific case is that the will is a forged document fine also alleged that in any event the will should be taken to have been brought about by undue influence and coercion on the part of the first and third defendants.

4. The trial court on a due consideration of the entire evidence on record held that the execution of the will Exhibit B-1 has not been duly proved. In that view the trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition. The decision of the trial court was challenged in appeal before this court by the third defendant N. S. Ramaswami J. dismissed the appeal holding that though the will has been registered there was no evidence on the basis of which one can safely conclude that Annemmal herself did appear before the Sub Registrar and admitted the execution of the said document, that the evidence of D. W. 1, the Sub Registrar will merely establish that a person calling herself Annammal appeared before him and that she admitted the execution of the will, but that it is quite inconclusive to show that Annammal, the mother of the plaintiff admitted the execution of the document before the Sub Registrar, that in view of the continued illness of Annammal it is possible that some one else impersonated her before the Sub Registrar and that therefore, it is not possible to hold that the execution of the will Ex. B-1 has been duly proved. He also held that the provisions of S. 69 of the Evidence Act have not been satisfied and D. W. 3 the only attesting witness alive who is said to have attested the document has denied the same. The said decision of the learned Judge has been challenged in this appeal by the third defendant,

5. Thus the only question that arises in this appeal is as to whether the execution of the will Ex. B-1 has been duly proved. The question as to whether Ex. B-1 is proved has to be decided in the light of Ss. 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act and S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act Under S. 67 of the Evidence Act, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person the signature of that person must be proved to be in his handwriting and for proving such a handwriting the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of that person are made relevant under Ss. 45 and 47 of the said Act. Section 68 deafe with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the