Attestation of a will by two witnesses is a mandatory requirement for its validity under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Defendants 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal against the decision of the court below confirming that of the trial court.

2. The plaintiff s suit is for partition and allotment of her 1/4th share of the suit property and for other consequential reliefs.

3. One Telikicharia Narasimha Murty had 2 sons and 2 daughters. Defendants 1 and 2 are his two sons and the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 are his two daughters. The said Narasimha Murty died on 21-12-61 leaving behind him the suit properties. The above-mentioned facts are not disputed.

4. The plaintiffs case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the said Narasimha Murty did not have sufficient income to acquire the suit properties and that those properties were acquired by him by selling his ancestral properties in Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh. After the death of Narasimha Murty, defendants 1 and 2 possessed the suit properties without allowing the plaintiff any share in the same though she is entitled to a share in those properties. The plaintiff asked the defendants to amicably partition the said properties, but as they turned a deaf ear to her request she instituted this suit.

5. Defendant no. 1 in his written statement supports the plaintiff s case of acquisition of the suit properties by Narasimha Murty out of the sale proceeds of his ancestral properties in the district of Srikakulam. He further states that all the suit properties were enjoyed as ancestral joint family properties of the parties; Narasimha Murty was not keeping fit, both physically and mentally, and as he was staying with defendant no. 2 he was under the influence and control of the 2nd defendant. It is further stated that defendant no. 3 is colluding with and is supporting the cause of defendant no. 2 as the latter is the son-in-law of the former; and that the averments made in the plaint are mostly true and the averments made in the written statements of defendants 2 and 3 are false. He claims 5/12th share in the suit properties.

6. Defendants 2 and 3 actually contested the suit. In the written statements filed by them it is alleged that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Narasimha Murty; he executed a will on 19-4-60 bequeathing his self-acquired properties in a particular manner and that being the last will of the testator the allotment of his said properties has to be done strictly in accordance with his last wish as specified in the said will, and the plaintiff cannot ask for a partition of the said properties.

7. Both the courts on independent assessment of the evidence on record have arrived at the findings that the plaint A schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Narasimha Murty as he obtained the same by gift from his employer; the plaint B and C schedule properties were acquired by Narasimha Murty out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral lands of the family situated in the district of Srikakulam; and that the will Ext. L/2 filed by defendants 2 and 3 has not been proved in accordance with law and so it cannot be acted upon. The lower appellate court has further held that apart from the fact that attestation of the said will has not been proved in accordance with law, it is also established in this case that Narasimha Murty at the relevant time of the execution of the will was not in a fit state of mind to dispose of his properties. On the above findings the suit for partition has been decreed fixing the shares as mentioned in the operative portion of the trial court judgment.

8. It is contended by Mr. Ramdas, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the findings of the court below that the will has not been proved in accordance with law and that the testator at the relevant time was not in a fit condition of mind to dispose of his properties are illegal and incorrect.

9. The courts below have found that defendants 2 and 3, who filed the unregistered document Ext. L/2 and who want to assert that the said document is the last will of