The execution and attestation of a Will must be proved in accordance with the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement of the Sub-Registrar made under the Indian Registration Act cannot be considered as an attestation as envisaged by Section 63 of the Hindu Succession Act.

S.S.Rathor, J.

1. Present respondent-Nagina filed a suit for declaration that the alleged Will dated 20-2-1978 purported to have been executed by his brother Balwant Singh in favour of Sat Pal, appellant is forged, fictitious and not binding on his rights to succeed to the estate left behind by Balwant Singh. Further relief for possession of 1/lOth share of land measuring 79 kanals and 2 marlas detailed in the plaint was also sought. Precisely, the plaintiffs case was that he and his brother Talab (father of Sat Pal, defendant) are the sole surviving lawful heirs to succeed to the estate of deceased Balwant Singh.

2. The defendants (now appellants) in the suit, contested the claim of the plaintiffs and it was pleaded in the written statement that the Will in question is a legally valid documents, duly executed by Balwant Singh in favour of Sat Pal defendant. It was further averred that the Will was executed by the testator with full disposing mind. In the alternative, it was also pleaded in the written statement that if Will is ignored, Sat Pal, defendant is a validly adopted son of deceased Balwant Singh and he alone would succeed to the estate left behind by Balwant Singh deceased being his lawful heir as an adopted son.

3. Keeping in view the respective pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues on different dates but consolidatedly are put as follows:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff & Talab alone were entitled to succeed to the property in dispute ? OPP (1-A) Whether the suit property is ancestral ? OPP

(1-B) Whether the parties are governed by custom in matters of alienation and succession ? If so, to what effect ? OPP

(2) Whether Balwant Singh, deceased, executed a valid Will in favour of defendant No. 3 ? OPD

(3) Whether the Will in favour of defendant No. 3 is forged, illegal and if so consequent on the grounds mentioned in para No. 5 of the plaint? OPP.

(4) Whether the Court fees is sufficient ? OPP (4-A) Whether Sat Pal, defendant, was the adopted son of Balwant Singh, deceased. If so, to what effect ? OPD.

(5) Relief.

4. After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the Will in question dated 20-2-1978 is illegal, forged and in no way adversely affects the rights of the plaintiffs in the land in dispute. The findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3 being co-related, were returned in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In the absence of a registered adoption deed and oral evidence being cryptic, contradictory and untrustworthy, the Trial Court under issue No. 4. recorded a positive finding that Sat Pal. defendant was not adopted by Balwant Singh. Under issue No. 1-A. it was held that property was not proved to be ancestral and as such. was decided against the plaintiff. Similarly issue No. 1-B was also decided against the plaintiff holding that the parties were not governed by customs in the matter of alienation and succession. However, in view of finding recorded under issue Nos. 2 and 3, suit was decreed by the Trial Court holding the Will in question to be an invalid and forged document, not effecting the reversionary rights of the plaintiff qua estate left behind by his brother Balwant Singh to the extent claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint.

5. The present appellants, feeling aggrieved from the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4-3-1987 of the lower Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court analytically scrutinized and appreciated the evidence on the record of the case and concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court on various issues. Of course, the Trial Court has not recorded a specific finding under issue No. 1 but as observed by the first Appellate Court non-recording of finding under issue No. 1 is immaterial because admittedly, on the date of death of Balwant Singh, the plaintiff, Talab (father of present appellants) were the only lawful heirs. This aspect of the case as cov