The main legal point established in the judgment is that the signature of the testator was affixed by another person in her presence and by her direction, which was held to be a valid mode of execution under Section 63(a) of the Succession Act 39 of 1925.

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a testamentary suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the grant of probate of a will dated 22nd July 1930, and alleged to have been executed by the late Rangammal. Plaintiff is Rangam mals husbands brothers daughter. Plaintiffs brother is the late Subbaroya Beddi, the father of the minor defendant. According to the case of the plaintiff, she and her elder brother Subbaroya Reddi were living with Rangammal after their parents death, but after the marriage of Subbaroya Reddi he went over to his mother-in-laws house and the plaintiff alone continued to live with Bangammal throughout. Plaintiff has a daughter Muthiammal. Under the will in question (Ex. A), Bangammal bequeathed a debt due to her on a pro-note amounting to Rs. 1,900 together with moveables worth Bs. 25 in favour of the plaintiff to be held and enjoyed by her for her life and the remainder should be taken by her daughter Muthiammal with absolute rights. Rangammal had an attack of small-pox some days before the execution of the alleged will. She died on 26th July 1930, about four days after the execution of the will. Defendant resisted the plaintiffs claim by denying the genuineness of the will and also urging that it was not validly executed by Rangammal, even if the will be found to be genuine. The learned District Judge found both these points in favour of the plaintiff.

2. As regards the fact of execution of the will, there is, in my opinion, satisfactory proof of the truth of the will. It is common ground that the plaintiff and her daughter were living with the deceased Rangammal down to the latters death and they were all messing together. The plaintiff has no property of her own as would appear even from the admission of D.W. 1. Her brother Subbaroya Reddi left Rangammals house after his marriage and the plaintiff alone continued to be under the protection of Rangammal. The disposition by Rangammal of the little property that she had in favour of the plaintiff and her daughter is perfectly natural. The will was written by P.W. 2 who is both the Village Munsif and the karnam of the village of the testatrix. It is at tested by a number of witnesses of whom Subbaroya Reddi, the late father of the defendant, is said to be one. P.Ws. 3 to 5 are the other attestors. P.Ws. 3 and & appear to be men of substantial status in the village each paying a cist of Rs. 200. The evidence of the plaintiff is amply corroborated by the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses as regards the genuineness of the will. Nothing has been elicited to indicate any bias in these witnesses or any motive for them to be parties to a forged will in order to benefit the plaintiff.

3. Their evidence shows that it was Subbaroya Reddi, (the brother of the plaintiff) who, at the instance of Bangammal, brought the writer for preparing the will and also brought P.Ws. 3 to 5 to attest it. In fact, the very first attestation in the will purports to be his. If his attestation is true the genuineness of the will is placed beyond the pale of doubt, for he is the person interested in questioning the bequest made by Bangammal. The signature in the will, Ex. A, purporting to be his signature, when compared with his signatures in Exs. B and C (which are undisputed), impresses me with the belief in its genuineness. This is also the inference of the learned District Judge on a comparison of the signatures. The defendant has set up a fantastic story in para. 4 of his written statement, which however he has failed to substantiate. The story is that his father was asked to attest the document some time after the death of Rangammal and when he refused to do so some misunderstandings arose, and thereupon, not being able to resist the pressure brought to bear upon him, he fell into a well and died. In this narrative, there is studied omission to state whether his father attested the will or not. Plaintiff herself admits in her evidence that her brother died 10 days