Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri H.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Following two substantial questions of law are involved in this case:

“(1) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the will dated 28.7.1993 was not proved?

(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as the “LAC”) has committed manifest error and illegality by applying Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1956”) and ignored the provisions of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1950”)while deciding the legal rights between Premwati (wife of testator) and Raju with respect to the disputed Bhumadhari land?”

3. The Courts below have held that will dated 28.7.1993 was not proved since there were two attesting witnesses, namely, Samaliya and Ghanshyam but none of them were produced to prove execution and attestation of will and, therefore, the will was not proved in accordance with law.

4. However, the record shows that PW-3 who was examined on 23.3.2000, his name has been mentioned in the certified photocopy of statement produced bef