TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (3) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... number. The first respondent claimed title to the suit properties on the strength of a settlement deed executed by her brother, Linga Pillai, on 24-9-1971. According to the case of the first respondent, Linga Pillai was the absolute owner of the suit properties, having got them under a registered Will executed by one Pattammal on 15-4-1968. Pattammal, according to the first respondent, in turn obtained the suit properties under a partition deed dt. 21-10-1961 between the appellant, Pattammal and another. The further case of the first respondent was that the appellant had no manner of right or interest in the suit properties, but purported to execute sale deeds in favour of respondents 2 and 3 in respect of certain portions of the suit prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me. Aggrieved by this the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S. 256 of 1978, District Court, North Arcotat Vellore. The lower appellate Court concurred with the conclusions of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The appellant challenges in this second appeal the correctness of the same. 4. The finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court regarding the allotment of the suit properties to the share of Pattammal in the partition under Ex.A. 3 dt 21-10-1961 between the appellant, Pattammal and another, was not challenged before this Court Likewise, the execution of the settlement deed by Linga Pillai (P.W. 2) in favour of the first respondent under Ex.A.4 dt. 24-9-1971 was also not questioned by the appellant. The only contention ur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attammal and attested in accordance with the law. In this connection. It is necessary to refer to Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, which runs as under - "63(c). The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness, who is called, is able to depose to all that is required by Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, for the valid execution of a will, that would suffice for Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not in any manner change or a alter the requirements to be proved by Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. A reading of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, establishes that a person propounding a Will has to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed and that should be done by not merely establishing that the signature on the Will was that of the testator, but also that the attestations were made in the manner contemplated by Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and that they had seen the testatrix executing the Will and that they had both figured as attestors in that Will. It is significant that the evidence of P.W. 3 relating to his presence as well as the presence of the other attestor and the attestors having signed the Will, has not in any manner been challenged in cross examination. This unchallenged evidence of P.W. 3 clearly shows the execution of the Will by Pattammal as contemplated under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. Learned counsel for the appellant however made a faint attempt to contend that P.W. 3 has not referred to the attestation by the other attestor. However, it is seen from the Will Ex.A-6 as well as the evidence of P.W. 3 that he had referred to the execution of the Wil....