JUDGMENT Dutta, J. This appeal arises out of an application for grant of letter of administration which was filed by the present respondent and which was subsequently registered as a suit after the present appellant entered appearance and filed an objection. The will in question is a registered will dated 4-6-1933 which is alleged to have been executed by two brothers Parma Rai and Jadu Rai both of whom admittedly died unmarried. According to the case of the plaintiff-respondent by this will the two executants bequeathed all their properties to the plaintiff-respondent and he became entitled to the same on the deaths of these two executants out of whom Jadu Rai died in Chait, 1939 and Parma Rai on 14-8-1967. The case of the present appellant in the court below was that the will in question was not a genuine document but was a forged and fabricated one and his further case was that Parma Rai and Jadu Rai were addicted to Ganja and Bhang and were not in a position to understand the contents of the aforesaid will at the time when the same is alleged to have been executed by them and it was further alleged that the will was brought into existence by practising- fraud upon them. 2. On consideration of the evidence as adduced by the parties, the court below came to the finding that the will in question is a genuine document which was duly executed and attested according to law and it further came to the finding that the two testators had executed the same after fully understanding the contents of the document. In accordance with these findings the prayer of the respondent for grant of letter of administration with respect to the will in question has been allowed and the present appeal has thereon been preferred by the appellant. 3. The only points that were urged before me in this appeal was that the will in question is not a valid document as the properties forming the subject matter of the bequest have not been specified therein and that the will has not been duly executed in accordance with law and that it was not admissible in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. 4. 4. As regards the objection regarding the invalidity of the Will on account of non-specification of the properties therein, it appears on reference to the will itself (vide Exhibit 9) that by this document the two testators purported to make a bequest of all the movable and immovable properties that might be left by them. Hence, as the bequest specifically related to the entire properties belonging to the executants, there could not be any question of any vagueness in the will so far the properties are concerned and as such, the contention about the will being invalid on account of non-specification of the properties is quite untenable. 5. The next question for determination is whether this will was not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to both this Section as well as Section 69 which are as follows :- "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. If a document is required by la w to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act XVI of 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied." “69. Proof where no attesting witness found. If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing, the document is in the handwriting of that person." The will in the present case purports to have been attested by three attesting witness, namely. Ramnihora Rai, Ramsarup Rai, and Harbansh Rai and as shown by the evidence which is not disputed, two of them, namely, Ramnihora Rai and Ramsarup Rai are already dead. Ramnihora Rai, Ramsarup Rai, and Harbansh Rai and as shown by the evidence which is not disputed, two of them, namely, Ramnihora Rai and Ramsarup Rai are already dead. I may mention here that according to the evidence of the plaintiff (P. W. 4) as well as the scribe of the will (P. W. 8) one Akbar Ali Mian was also an attesting witness although the copy of the will as embodied in the paper book does not show the name of any such person as an attesting witness. In any case, according to the evidence of the plaintiff, all the attesting witnesses except. Harbansh Rai are dead and this position is not disputed. It further appears that the petition filed by the plaintiff was attested by this Harbansh Rai with the recital that he was an attesting witness to the will dated 4-6-1933 which was executed by Parma Rai and Jadu Rai in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and with the further recital that the will was executed by the testators who put their thumb impression in his presence, Harbansh Rai, however, could not be examined as a witness to prove this will as, according to the plaintiff, he had some dispute with Harbansh after the institution of the case and he has been gained over by the other side. It appears from the judgment of the court below that summons for procuring the attendance of Harbansh had been issued thrice and summons bad been duly served on him on one of these occasions and as he failed to appear in the court inspite of the summons, warrant of arrest was also issued against him. As would appear from the evidence of the plaintiff, he was an attesting witness to the service report on the warrant of arrest, and his evidence as well as the service report of the warrant as proved by the plaintiff shows that the warrant of arrest could not be executed as Harbansh concealed himself after the process was issued and the process server went to serve the same. There can oat be any doubt in view of all these evidence that the attendance of Harbansh Rai, who is the sole surviving attesting witness to the will, could not be secured in spite of the fact that both summons as well as warrant of arrest had been issued for the purpose. There can oat be any doubt in view of all these evidence that the attendance of Harbansh Rai, who is the sole surviving attesting witness to the will, could not be secured in spite of the fact that both summons as well as warrant of arrest had been issued for the purpose. According to the provisions of Section 68, referred to above, in case of a will if there be any attesting witness alive and subject to the process of court and capable of giving evidence, the same shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. Section 69, however, provides as to what is to happen in case the attendance of an attesting witness cannot be procured. According to this Section, if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of the attesting witness is in his handwriting and the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. As would appear from the evidence already referred to above, the attendance of Harbansh Rai, the only surviving attesting witness, could not be procured in spite of the issue of appropriate processes of the court, namely, issue of summons thrice one of which was duly served upon him and the issue of warrant of arrest. It is thus, manifest, that the attendance of this witness could not be secured in spite of the fact that all the processes prescribed by the Code for securing the attendance of a witness had been exhausted. That being the position, it must be held that the requirements of Section 68 as well as Section 69 have been fully complied with as in spite of the witness being duly called upon, he could not be found for the purpose of giving his evidence. That being the position, it must be held that the requirements of Section 68 as well as Section 69 have been fully complied with as in spite of the witness being duly called upon, he could not be found for the purpose of giving his evidence. I, accordingly, bold that the mere fact that Harbansh Rai, the only surviving attesting witness, could not be examined in this case does not, in any way stand as a bar to the admission of this will in evidence as in view of the provisions of Sections 68 and 69 referred to above, the will could be proved in this case by proving that (Sic) the attestation of the attesting witness to have been made by him and by proving that the signature of the persons executing the document are in the handwriting of these persons as provided in Section 69 of the Evidence Act. These requirements have been fully complied with in this case by the evidence of the plaintiff (P. W. 4) and the scribe (P. W. 8) both of whom have deposed that the will was executed in their presence and the executants and the attesting witnesses had put their thumb marks in their presence. P.W. 4 has further stated that the scribe Suraj Narain signed for the two executants after they had put their thumb marks and the scribe (P. W. 8) himself also has deposed to the same effect and has further stated that after Harbansh gave his thumb mark he (the scribe) signed for him. In view of all these evidence there cannot be the least doubt that the formalities as provided by Section 69 of the Evidence Act have been duly complied with in this case. It follows, therefore, that the contention that the document was inadmissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 68 is quite untenable. 6. I may also mention in this context that the court below appears to have been of the view that P.W. 8 Suraj Narain, who was the scribe of the will, also stood in the position of an attesting witness. 6. I may also mention in this context that the court below appears to have been of the view that P.W. 8 Suraj Narain, who was the scribe of the will, also stood in the position of an attesting witness. This view taken by the court below cannot, however, be accepted because there is nothing in the evidence of this witness, who had put his signature on the document as scribe thereof, to show that he had put his signature after the executants had put their thumb marks on the document and he himself bad signed the document for the two executants. The court below has expressed the opinion that the sequence of his statements would show that he attested the document after the executants had put their thumb mark but this view cannot be accepted as it appears that so far his own signature on the document is concerned, his statement was as follows :- "This will is in my pen and bears my signature at the foot of the document." This clearly indicates that he put his signature in connection with the scribing of the document and in his capacity as the scribe and not in any other capacity, and the statement as made by him would further import that the signature was put by him immediately after he scribed the document. That being the position, this witness cannot be considered to have occupied the position of an attesting witness also to the documents. This, however, is quite immaterial in view of the finding above that the bar as imposed under Section 68 of the Evidence Act has no application to the present case in view of the fact that the attendance of the surviving attesting witness could not be secured in spite of all processes of the court being exhausted for the purpose and in view of the further fact that thereafter the requirements of Section 69 have been duly complied with. 7. The next question for consideration is as to whether the document is invalid on account of its not having been executed and attested in the manner prescribed by law. The contention of the appellant in this connection is that although the document purports to be attested by three attesting witnesses, the evidence as adduced by the scribe does not show that the attesting witnesses had signed the document in presence of the executants. The contention of the appellant in this connection is that although the document purports to be attested by three attesting witnesses, the evidence as adduced by the scribe does not show that the attesting witnesses had signed the document in presence of the executants. It is no doubt, true that the evidence of the scribe (P.W. 8) is silent on the point, for although he has stated that the executants had given their thumb mark in presence of the witness himself and the attesting witnesses and has thereafter stated that the witnesses also put their thumb mark or signature in his (P. W. 8's) presence, he has not made any specific statement about the executants being present when the attesting witnesses put their signature or thumb mark. It transpires, however, that although this witness has not made any specific statement on the point, the plaintiff (P.W. 4) specifically stated that the witnesses had signed or put their thumb mark in presence of the two executants Parma Rai and Jadu Rai. Apart from this, it may also be mentioned that the will in question - was over thirty years old at the time when the trial of the case was taken up and its production from proper custody had also been proved in the court below and, as such, the presumption as laid down under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is fully applicable in case of this document. According to this section, in case of such a document, the court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. In view of these provisions, the will in question may be presumed to have been duly executed and attested according to law and this presumption arising under Section 90 is fully supported by the evidence of the plaintiff (P.W.4) already referred to above. On a consideration of all the above aspects hold that the contention about the document having not been executed and attested in accordance with law and being invalid as such, cannot be accepted. 8. On a consideration of all the above aspects hold that the contention about the document having not been executed and attested in accordance with law and being invalid as such, cannot be accepted. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs as being without any merit and the judgment and decree of the court below are hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.