ORDER M. P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioner No. 1 was issued the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 15-1-1977, a certified copy whereof is on the record. Thereafter two cross appeals were filed one by the State and the other by the petitioner. Both of them were decided by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 15-10-1977 a certified copy of which is Annexure 8 to the petition. 3. Wow the petitioners have come up la the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri Triloki Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. It may be stated that petitioner No. 1 is the brother and the petitioner No. 2 is the sister. Both of them are issues of one Ram Singh. It is the contention that under a will dated 16-8-1969, alleged to have been executed by Ram Singh, certain land was bequeathed by the said testator in favour of his daughter Smt. Ram Kishori, who is petitioner No. 2 before me. It was contended that the said land bequeathed to the petitioner No. 2 was wrongly included in the holding of the petitioner No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that before the appellate court certain documents were sought to be filed by an application dated 25/26-3-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure A to the petition. The appellate court did not pass any order on the said application and decided the case without considering the said papers and without passing any order on the said application which sought leave to bring additional evidence on the record at the appellate stage. The appellate court should have passed some order on the application either accepting or rejecting it. From the copy of the order sheet which has been placed before me along with an affidavit of the petitioner No. 1, it seems that this application was numbered as 1062 and on 26-3-1977 the appellate court directed it to be placed in the presence of the counsel on 26-4-1977. From the copy of the order sheet which has been placed before me along with an affidavit of the petitioner No. 1, it seems that this application was numbered as 1062 and on 26-3-1977 the appellate court directed it to be placed in the presence of the counsel on 26-4-1977. However the order sheet dated 26-4-1977 and thereafter shows that the application did not come up for disposal before the court and remained undisposed of. The learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant in the lower appellate court did not bring it to the notice of the said court that there was such an application pending disposal. 5. However, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the appellate court recorded a clear finding that the will was not proved in accordance with law. It being an attested document, had to be proved by calling an attesting witness. In the instant ease one of the attesting witness Binda Prasad was called but according to the appellate court he merely stated that the will was signed by the testator Ram Singh in the presence of the said witness. The witness did not further state that the attesting witnesses also signed the document in the presence of the said testator. In this view of the matter, the Will was not proved in accordance with law. In this connection reference may be made to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act where the word "attested" has been defined in the following manner: " "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 6. Similarly in Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, it has been laid down as under :- "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. Similarly in Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, it has been laid down as under :- "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:- (a) & (b) ...... ........ ....... ..... ... (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 acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or 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." 7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Will itself was not proved in accordance with law and hence the petitioner No. 2 could not claim the land in dispute which she claimed to have been bequeathed in her favour on the basis of the said Will. Will being the basis of the title, was bound to be proved and on the failure of the1 petitioners to prove the said document, the very basis of the title fails. In such circumstances, the additional evidence which was sought to be brought on the record by the said application, could be of no avail. In these circumstances, a remand will also be of no purpose and help. In my opinion, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel is correct and has to be accepted. 8. Therefore, despite the said lacuna in the procedure, which was followed by the lower appellate court in deciding the said application of the appellant to be allowed to place on record certain additional evidence, still, there will be no justification for quashing the appellate courts judgment on the said basis. 9. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.