A will's validity requires strict adherence to evidentiary standards, including the necessity of attesting witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit for a preliminary decree declaring the rights of first and third plaintiffs to an extent of 1/7 and 2/7 shares respectively, in the present appeal by the second defendant.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court. 3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession. The suit property was originally owned by one Md Azizuddin, the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 3 and husband of the second plaintiff. The first and second defendants are sons of the said Azizuddin. The said Azizuddin died on 02.08.2006 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants as his legal heirs. After his demise, the plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint enjoyment of the property as co-owners. Due to difference of opinion between the plaintiffs and the defendants, they are not able to enjoy the property jointly. The plaintiffs suggested to sell the property and to share the sale proceeds amongst themselves. However, the defendants refused to co-operate with the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit. After filing of the suit, the second plaintiff died and hence, the first plaintiff is entitled to 8/56 share and the third plaintiff is entitled

16/56 share.

4. The case of the first defendant is that he never objected to sell the plaint schedule property. The suit property is not properly calculated and wrongly mentioned. After deducting her 1/8^th share, the remaining 49 shares have to be divided among the children of the second plaintiff as per law. The first plaintiff is entitled to 7/49 share and not 7/56 share. It is his further case that his father has not executed any Will as stated by the second defendant. Hence, according to the first defendant he is having 14/49 share in the plaint schedule property.

5. The second defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit property has been developed by his parents and the second defendant has given financial support to his father. The first defendant and the first plaintiff were students and the third plaintiff was out of station and he has not turned up for a long time either to assist his father nor help him by way of monetary means and not provided even square meals to the second plaintiff. The first defendant with illegal custody of his mother had obtained the settlement in his favour. It is his further case that the second defendant's father had written a Will called as Hiba in his favour and his minor children on 27.06.2006. Hence, opposed the suit.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any share over the suit property and if are, what is their share?

2. Whether the alleged Will dated 27.06.2006 is valid?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary decree for partition?

4. To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?

7. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 to E.B.8 have been marked.

8. The trial Court, considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the Will and the Hiba have not been established and granted preliminary decree to the plaintiffs. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that Ex.B.1 dated 27.06.2006 is a Hiba wherein the property has been given to the second defendant and pursuant to the same, the properties have been settled in favour of the third defendant on 04.12.