https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189019 Additional evidence in appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is confined to the statutory contingencies and cannot be used to fill gaps in proof; a belated request made after long delay was properly refused. A will must be proved by compliance with Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act, including examination of at least one attesting witness where available. The scribe's testimony cannot replace proof by attesting witnesses, because a scribe does not become an attesting witness merely by writing and signing the document. On these facts, the will was not proved in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Dec 2016 10:35:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189019 Additional evidence in appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is confined to the statutory contingencies and cannot be used to fill gaps in proof; a belated request made after long delay was properly refused. A will must be proved by compliance with Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act, including examination of at least one attesting witness where available. The scribe's testimony cannot replace proof by attesting witnesses, because a scribe does not become an attesting witness merely by writing and signing the document. On these facts, the will was not proved in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189019