The execution of a Will must be duly proved in accordance with the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence of an attesting witness is essential to prove due execution, and the evidence of other witnesses cannot be used to supplement the evidence of the attesting witness.

B. K. PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore dismissing an application filed by the appellants under Section 276 of the Indian succession Act praying for granting to them probate of the Will dated 21-1-1961 alleged to have been executed in their favour by one Krushnamoni Sahu. Krushnamoni Sahu was the widow of one Kailas. Appellant No. 2 Snehalata is the daughter of Kailas and appellant No. 1 Harischandra is the husband of Snehalata. Kailas had a son Baidyanath who predeceased him. The Respondents are two sons and the daughter of Baidyanath. Krushnamoni died on 23-5-1962 in Balasore hospital. It is the case of the appellants that more than a year before her death she had executed the disputed Will Ext. 1 under which she had bequeathed her entire interest which she had described as 1/3rd in favour of the appellants. Admittedly, no disposition was made in favour of the respondents. . The respondents in their written statement contended that the testator was an illiterate and rustic lady and was continuously ailing for two years before her death and on that account had lost her balance of mind. Appellant No. 1 who was looking after properties after the death of her husband, had apparently managed to take the thumb impression of Krushnamoni on some blank papers and had fabricated the alleged Will thereon. According to the defendants, therefore, the Will is a forged one and was never executed by Krushnamoni.

( 2 ) IN support of the application, the appellant No. 1 examined himself and two other witnesses, namely, one of the attestors and the scribe of Ext. 1. The other attestor was admittedly dead by the time the suit was tried. The respondents examined two witnesses on their behalf.

( 3 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record the learned Subordinate Judge held that appellant No. 1 after obtaining thumb marks of Krushnamoni on some plain papers had fabricated the alleged Will after her death and obtained the signature of the attestors thereon. In view of this finding he dismissed the application.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY after the death of Krushnamoni's husband appellant No. 1 began to look after her properties and he was doing so till her death in 1962. The testator was more than 60 years old at the time when she is alleged to have executed the will and we have the evidence of P. W. 1 that she was old and weak because of age and illness. Krushnamoni was living in a village different from the one where the appellants were residing. The Will was not executed at the testator's house but was executed in the house of the appellants in the latter's village. It is, therefore, that none of the neighbours of Krushnamoni had attested the Will. The Will was scribed by one Mahendra Prasad Das, a pleader's clerk and he admits that he had worked as a Moharir for appellant No. 1 in several Bhagchas cases. Although appellant No. 1 has stated that it is Krushnamoni who had sent for the scribe and the attestors, P. W. 3 the scribe has admitted that two days before the execution of the Will, it is appellant No. 1 who had asked him to go to his house on the appointed date to scribe the Will. Having regard, therefore, to these circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that appellant No. 1 had taken a very prominent part in the matter relating to the execution of the Will, assuming for a moment that the Will was actually executed by Krushnamoni. Added to these circumstances, there is the fact that the entire interest of Krushnamoni in the family properties has been bequeathed to the appellants under the Will and that her own grandsons have been completely excluded therefrom. These are all circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the court that it does not express the mind of the testator and it is therefore the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove such suspicion. No explanation whatsoever has been offered as to why instead of executing the Will at her own house Krushnamoni came all the way to