Judgment :- 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit from which this appeal arises for a declaration of their title to the properties scheduled to the plaint on the basis that they were the legatees under a Will executed by one Krishna Pillai to whom the properties belonged. Krishna Pillai died on 10-10-1960. The plaintiffs are his sisters. Defendant No.1 is his widow and defendants 2 to 6 are his children. According to the plaintiffs, Krishna Pillai had executed a Will, Ex. P1, on 1-10-1112 and deposited it in the District Registrar's Office, Trivandrum, as a closed Will inside a cover, Ex. P2. He took it back in 1950, and according to the plaintiffs, entrusted it with the 7th defendant, who is the son-in-law of the first plaintiff, for safe custody and with a direction to keep it secret and not to open it until his death The plaintiffs claim that it was his last Will The defendants contested the case, and according to them, the deceased Krishna Pillai, though had deposited a document called a'Will' before the District Registrar, took it back, as an act of revocation of the Will, in 1950, and made an entry to that effect in his diary, Ex. D5. He also executed a Will on 30-10-1952 in which he clearly stated that he had revoked the earlier Will evidenced by Ex. P1. It was also alleged that the subsequent conduct of Krishna Pillai was clear evidence to show that he had revoked the earlier Will and constituted his wife and children as his sole legal heirs. 2. The trial court, after taking the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that deceased Krishna Pillai had by the act of withdrawing the Will from the District Registrar's office, revoked the Will, and this revocation was further confirmed by Krishna Pillai by the execution of Ex D4 Will dated 30-10-1952. Therefore the plaintiff's were found to be not entitled to claim any right under Ex. D1 and the suit was dismissed. It is against that this appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that in the nature of the defence plea that Krishna Pillai had executed a Will, Ex. P1, it is for the defendants to show that it had been validly revoked, that the evidence let in this case by the defendants would not instify a conclusion that Ex. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that in the nature of the defence plea that Krishna Pillai had executed a Will, Ex. P1, it is for the defendants to show that it had been validly revoked, that the evidence let in this case by the defendants would not instify a conclusion that Ex. P1 had been revoked. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the proof of revocation of the Will should arise for determination only if there was a valid Will as contemplated under S 63 of the Indian Succession Act. According to them, Ext. P1 did not satisfy this requirement They further contended that if for any reason Ex. P1 was a valid Will, the act of withdrawal of the Will from the District Registrar's office amounted to a revocation of the Will as contemplated by law and further that this revocation had been confirmed by Krishna Pillai by the execution of Ex- D4 Will. Two questions, therefore, arise for determination in this case: (i) whether there was a valid Will executed by Krishna Pillai, and (ii) if there was one, whether that had been revoked by Krishna Pillai. 4. As regards the first question, it has to be mentioned at the outset that a contention questioning the valid execution of a Will as put forward before this Court in the form of a cross objection had not been specifically put forward in the written statement of the defendants. Plaintiffs in the plaint alleged that Krishna Pillai had executed a Will in conformity with the provisions of the relevant Statute. This had been denied in the written statement. It was for the plaintiffs as part of their case, to prove that the Will propounded satisfied the requirements of the Succession Act, especially when their claim was only based on this document. So, the absence of a better plea regarding the invalidity of the Will propounded was of no consequence. Further, the way in which the plaintiffs attempted to let in evidence showed that they were aware of the requirement of the proof of a valid execution of a Will in conformity with the provisions of the Statute. So, the question whether there had been an execution of the Will in the manner required by law has to bo considered. 5. So, the question whether there had been an execution of the Will in the manner required by law has to bo considered. 5. A Will should conform to the provisions of S.15 of the Travancore Wills Act which was in force in 1112 M. E. which reads as follows "15. Every testator must execute his Will in writing according to the following Rules: First. The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be-signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. Second. The signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. Third. The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix bis mark to the Will, or have seen some other person sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or have 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 must sign the Will in the presence of the testator; but it shall not be necessary that more than ore witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." According to this provision, the Will must be in writing and the testator should sign and the signature should be so placed in it that it shall appear that he intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. The Will most also be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom must have seen the testator sign the Will or they roust have received a personal acknowledgment of his signature and each of the witnesses must sign the Will in the presence of the testator. This requirement as regards the form of execution and attestation of the Will are absent in Ex. P1A perusal of the writing in Ex. P1 shows that there is only the signature of Krishna Pillai is it. There are no witnesses to it. The Will also does not mention that any attesting witness was present at the time when Krishna Pillai signed it. P1A perusal of the writing in Ex. P1 shows that there is only the signature of Krishna Pillai is it. There are no witnesses to it. The Will also does not mention that any attesting witness was present at the time when Krishna Pillai signed it. What Krishna Pillai did, appears to be, that he enclosed this document in a cover, affixed his seal on the cover as required by law for the deposit of Wills, and presented it for deposit with the Registrar. There is nothing to show that when Krishna Pillai signed Ex. P1 he was conscious of the fact that he should execute it in the presence of at least two witnesses or acknowledge its execution to them or that the witnesses should sign in his presence This legal requirement had been completely overlooked. 6. The plaintiffs have attempted to make out that the signature of Krishna. Pillai and the affixing of signatures by the two witnesses on the cover before the Registrar when the Will was presented for being deposited would amount to execution ana attestation of the Will as required by law. This has to be examined. S.35 to 39 of the Registration Act (Travancore Act 2 of 1087) relate to the deposit of a Will, the procedure to be followed by the Registrar on presentation of a Will for deposit, the procedure to be followed when the testator wanted to withdraw the Will and also the procedure to be followed to open the Will on proof of death of the testator. The rules also provide for the manner of endorsements and entries to be made by the Registrar on the cover and in the Registers. As per these provisions on receiving the cover superscribed to be the Will, if the Registrar is satisfied that the person presenting the same for deposit is the testator or his agent, he should transcribe the superscription on the cover of the Will in the separate register book kept for the purpose. He should also note in the book and the cover the year, month, day and hour of such presentation and receipt and the names of any person who may testify to the identity of the testator or his agent. In this case we find that Ex. P2 cover contains the superscription that the cover contains a Will. He should also note in the book and the cover the year, month, day and hour of such presentation and receipt and the names of any person who may testify to the identity of the testator or his agent. In this case we find that Ex. P2 cover contains the superscription that the cover contains a Will. Underneath that the Registrar has written the date and time of presentation of the Will and the name of the'person who presented it. Against that Krishna Pillai has signed and affixed his thumb impression. Below that under the heading the names and addresses and signatures of two witnesses are seen. Unlike the case of the registration of an ordinary document where the Registrar is bound to get an acknowledgment of the execution of the document from the person presenting it for registration, in the case of a deposit of a Will there is no necessity for it. So Krishna Pillai on presenting it only signed on the cover to evidence the fact of presentation of the Will. This will not amount to an acknowledgment of the will to the witnesses. One of the witnesses was reported to be dead now and the other witness was examined in the trial of this case as pw.1. This witness would say that he was present both at the time of the execution of the Will by Krishna Pillai and also, at the time of the presentation of the Will for deposit before the Registrar. The witness was examined in 1961. He spoke about a matter which took place in 1937. There was nothing impressive or important in this matter of signature and yet he would speak after such a'long time to meticulous details regarding the execution and the deposit of the Will. If a witness should testify to a minute recollection of the circumstances attending a long past transaction which required only a momentary attention, his testimony cannot be accepted at its face value. That is the position here. The difference between the date of execution and the date of presentation for deposit of the Will and the attendant circumstances show that this witness cannot be believed when he says that be was present at the execution of the Will or that he signed it as an attesting witness before the District Registrar. Further, as seen from the provisions of law noted above, the cover Ex. Further, as seen from the provisions of law noted above, the cover Ex. P2 is not part of the Will. No doubt, the Will is enclosed in it for deposit. But, the necessity of enclosing it in a cover is not a requirement of law for the due execution of a Will. The examination of two witnesses is not a very essential requirement to be complied with before a Will is deposited. The law requires only that the Registrar must be satisfied about the identity of the testator. If he knows the testator he need not examine any witness. The examination of these witnesses and obtaining their signature are for the purpose of recording this aliunde satisfaction of the Registrar in case of doubt. 7. The attestation of a Will is a conscious act. The animus to attest must be there. It must be done in the presence of the testator who must either sign before the witnesses or acknowledge his signature to them. In this case the witnesses had not the animus to attest the Will when they identified the person and put their signatures before the District Registrar. A similar question arose for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in a case reported in Kurian v. Martha (1962 KLT. 568) and it is said therein at page 572: "On the provisions of S.35 and 36 of the Travancore Registration Act and of R.73 quoted above, there is no scope for an inference of any such acknowledgement from the proceedings before the District Registrar, although his otherwise in the case of a document presented for registration under Part VII of the Travancore Registration Act, in which the Registering Officer is enjointed by S.27 (3) of that Act to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed and can proceed with registration only on admission of execution. In the Tatter case, a personal acknowledgment of execution in the presence of the identifying witnesses may be read into the admission of execution before the Registering Officer It is quite clear to me, that no inference of acknowledgment of execution can be made from the proceedings for the deposit of a will held before the District Registrar. If so. the signatures of pws.1 and 2 on Ext. If so. the signatures of pws.1 and 2 on Ext. P 1 do not amount to attestation of the signature of Kuriakose on Ext. P 1 (a)." In another portion of the same judgment the learned judge referring to the purpose of examining Identifying witnesses has stated thus (page 575): "Apart from oral testimony which is not particularly helpful the facts and circums-stances only establish, what the endorsement itself points to, that they signed alio intuitu as identifying witnesses and not ammo attesandi." The law has been correctly laid down in this decision. Applying these principles we have come to the conclusion that the signature of Krishna Pillai and the signatures of the identifying witnesses on the cover, Ex. P2, would not satisfy the requirement of a valid execution of a Will under S.15 of the Travancore Wills Act. Therefore, Ex. P-1 is not valid in law as a Will. 8. Assuming that the Will was validily executed, the further question is whether it had been revoked as contended by the defendants. Ext. P1 was got back from the District Registrar's office by Krishna Pillai in 1950. At that time the Travancore Wills Act was in force. This Act in S.17,18 and 19 provides for the manner of revocation of a Will. In the case of a registered Will, S.18 (a) requires a revocation by a writing duly registered declaring an intention to revoke the same, or by a subsequent registered Will. In the case of a deposited Will, S.18(b) provides that a withdrawal of the Will from the District Registrar's Office as mentioned in S.37 of the Registration Act will amount to a revocation of the Will. In the case of a deposited Will, S.18(b) provides that a withdrawal of the Will from the District Registrar's Office as mentioned in S.37 of the Registration Act will amount to a revocation of the Will. S.18 reads thus: 18 (a) No registered Will or Codicil nor any part thereof shall be revoked otherwise than under the last preceding Section, or by some writing duly registered declaring an intention to revoke the same, or by a subsequent Will registered under Part IX of Regulation.) of 1070: (b) No deposited Will or Codicil shaft be revoked otherwise than under the last preceding Section, or by its withdrawal under S.37 of Regulation.) of 1070, or by a writing duly registered; or by a subsequent Will registered under Part IX of Regulation.) of 1070: Provided that incases of revocation of such Wills or Codicils, no registration shall be required if the testator at the time of such revocation resides outside India." In this case, as stated earlier, Krishna Pillai got back the Will from the Registrar's office in 1950. This amounts to a revocation of the Will as stated in S.18 (b) of the Travancore Wills Act. No other overt act is contemplated by the Statute to make the revocation complete. When the testator gets back the Will from the Registrar's office the law presumes that he has done it as an act of revocation of his Will. Therefore, when Ext. P1 was got back from the District Registrar's office by Krishna Pillai, there was a revocation of the Will by him. 9. The matter does not stop here. A Will which has not been registered or deposited can be revoked by execution of another Will or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same and executed in the manner in which a Will is to be executed or by burning, tearing or otherwise destroying 'the same. In that way also the defendants have got a case that Krishna Pillai executed a Will evidenced by Ex. D4 on 30 101952 by which he confirmed the revocation of the earlier Will executed by him. The genuineness and execution of this document are disputed by the plaintiffs. In order to prove this the defendants have examined dw. 3, a witness to Ex. D4. He swears that Ex. D4 on 30 101952 by which he confirmed the revocation of the earlier Will executed by him. The genuineness and execution of this document are disputed by the plaintiffs. In order to prove this the defendants have examined dw. 3, a witness to Ex. D4. He swears that Ex. D4 was signed by Krishna Pillai in his presence and that he and the other witness who is dead now, signed the Will in the presence of Krishna Pillai. He clearly swears in cross-examination that he knew Krishna Pillai from a fairly long time. Nothing has been brought out by the plaintiffs to disbelieve this witness. None of the plaintiffs have been examined in this case. The first plaintiff's son-in-law, the 7th defendant, is examined as dw.1. He speaks to the plaintiffs case and proves the plaintiffs' documents. His statement that Krishna Pillai got back the cover from the Registrar's office only to temporarily silence the objection of his wife cannot be believed. His further statement that Ex. P2 cover was given to him without opening it for safe custody by Krishna Pillai and that it was kept by him without disclosing this fact to anybody cannot also be given any weight. The whole story looks very artificial and unnatural. 2nd defendant has been examined on behalf of the other defendants as well. He says that his father bad executed Ex. D4 and he did not want to give any share in his properties to the plaintiffs. He also swears that his father and the plaintiffs were on inimical terms. The various documents produced in this case corroborate his testimony regarding the fact of of revocation and also the intention of Krishna Pillai regarding the devolution of the properties on his death. Therefore, the defendants have succeeded in proving Ex. D4 Will which contains an unambiguous statement by Krishna Pillai that his earlier Will bad been revoked by him. 10. The lower court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any rights under Ex. P1. In this view, the appeal is without any substance. It is dismissed with costs. The lower court's decree is not against the defendants and hence the cross-objection is not maintainable and it is dismissed without costs.