Will proof requires strict attestation and removal of suspicion; registration cannot cure defective testamentary proof.

A will must satisfy the mandatory rules of attestation and proof: at least one attesting witness should be examined to speak to due execution, and the limited use of other evidence arises only when a called attesting witness denies or cannot recollect execution. Registration does not dispense with this proof, and suspicious circumstances must be removed before the document can be accepted. Where the available attesting witness was not proved, the document's unusual features and the propounder's conduct left unresolved suspicion, so resort to other evidence was impermissible. The will remained unproved and the partition decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the propounded will was proved in accordance with the mandatory requirements of attestation and proof under the law of succession and evidence. (ii) Whether registration of the will and the surrounding evidence justified invoking the rule permitting proof by other evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the propounded will was proved in accordance with the mandatory requirements of attestation and proof under the law of succession and evidence.

Analysis: A will must be attested by two or more witnesses, and its execution must ordinarily be proved by calling at least one attesting witness who can speak to the execution and attestation in the manner required by law. Where one attesting witness fails to prove due execution, the other available attesting witness must be examined; the limited facility of proving execution by other evidence is available only when an attesting witness who has been called denies or does not recollect the execution. A scribe, advocate, or registering officer is not an attesting witness unless the signature is placed with animus attestandi. Registration does not dispense with the mandatory proof of a will, and the court must also be satisfied that suspicious circumstances have been removed.

Conclusion: The will was not proved in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether registration of the will and the surrounding evidence justified invoking the rule permitting proof by other evidence.

Analysis: The record disclosed material circumstances creating serious doubt about the document, including the absence of proof from the available attesting witness, the unusual description and contents of the document, the conduct of the propounder, and the failure to remove legitimate suspicion regarding execution and testamentary intent. In these circumstances, the registered status of the document and the presumption connected with registration could not cure the foundational defect in proof, and the rule allowing other evidence could not be used to bypass the statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The resort to other evidence was impermissible and the will remained unproved.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was set aside and the trial court's preliminary decree of partition was restored because the alleged will was not established as a validly executed and proved testamentary document.

Ratio Decidendi: For a will, compliance with attestation and proof requirements is mandatory, and Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be invoked only after the attesting witness called denies or fails to recollect execution; registration alone cannot substitute proof of due execution or cure unresolved suspicious circumstances.

---