The main legal point established is the requirement of duly proving a will in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which influenced the court's decision in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.

1. This is defendant s second appeal against whom the suit for possession of the agricultural land has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for possession of the half share of the land measuring 93 kanals 17 marlas against Jarnail Singh defendant-appellant, on the allegations that Bhan Singh and Dan Singh were the co-owners of 93 kanals 17 marlas of land. The said Bhan Singh together with Kalyan Singh, Harnam-Kaur, Dan Singh and Narain Singh, plaintiff, owned 94 kanals 3 marlas of land specified in paragraph 3 of the plaint. Kalyan Singh and Harnam Kaur expired. Narain Singh, plaintiff, got their inheritance. On the demise of Dan Singh one Mst Panna describing herself as the widow of Dan Singh, deceased, got his land mutated in her favour which led the plaintiffs to file a suit against her which was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal being filed, a compromise was arrived at therein. Mst. Panna delivered possession of the land to the plaintiffs admitting that they were is the heirs of Dan Singh. The plaintiffs were the heirs with the fifth degree of Bhan Singh who passed away on Feb. 8, 1967, and were thus, entitled to inherit him. The alleged will by Bhan Singh favour of Jarnail Singly appellant, was a fictitious document and that the mutation sanctioned on its basis was not binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the will in favour of the defendant by Bhan Singh, testator, and the mutation sanctioned on its basis, were valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of Bhan Singh and Dan Singh and they are owners of the property, in suit?

2. Whether the property, in suit, is ancestral qua Bhan Singh and the plaintiffs?

3. Whether the parties were governed by custom in matters of alienations?

4. Whether Dan Singh, pre-deceased Bhan Singh ? If so, its effect?

5. Whether Bhan Singh executed a valid and genuine will in favour of the defendant? 6. Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation?

7. Relief.

Under issue No. 1, the trial Court found that the plaintiffs were the only heirs of Bhan Singh and Dan Singh. Under issue No. 2, it found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the ancestral nature of the suit land. Issue No. 3 became redundant in view of the enforcement of the Punjab Custom (power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973. Under issue No. 5. which was the most material issue, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the will, Exhibit D-3, could not be read in evidence as it was not duly proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. As a result, the plaintiffs suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by it. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.

3 The only question to be decided in this appeal is : whether the execution of the will, Exhibit D-3, by Bhan Singh, testator, was duly proved by the defendant or not?

4. According to the findings of the courts below the will was not duly proved because the two attesting witnesses thereof were not produced and that the evidence of the Sub-Registrar D. W. 3, and the scribe D. W. 5, cold not be said to be that of the attesting witnesses as to prove the execution of the will, Exhibit D-1, in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the two attesting witnesses could not be produced though they were summoned because they demanded price for deposing in favour of the defendant. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the testimony of the Sub-Registrar who registered the will on the very day of its execution no Jan. 27, 1966, amply proves the attestation of the will read with the testimony of t