( 1 ) THE first plaintiff, daughter of one Muni Chowdappa and the second and third plaintiffs, her sons and grandsons of said Muni Chowdappa have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below wherein their suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed on the ground that they are the only legatees under the Will executed by the aforesaid muni Chowdappa, and that Muni Chowdappa had 3 daughters and the first plaintiff is the last daughter. ( 2 ) IT is claimed that on 20-4-1987 there was a registered Will executed by Muni Chowdappa in favour of the first plaintiff and her two sons, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs bequeathing his entire property in their favour to the exclusion of both other daughters. ( 3 ) THE Will was denied by the defendants raising a contention that Muni Chowdappa was not in a sound disposing state of mind and body. He was sufficiently old and sickly person. It was contended that Muni Chowdappa was not competent to Will away specified items of properties of joint family consisting of his three younger brothers. ( 4 ) ON this main issue regarding validity of the Will, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Will has not been proved by not examining any one of the attesting witnesses within the meaning of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Consequently the Will was not proved and the suit was dismissed. ( 5 ) BEFORE the First Appellate Court, it was contended by the appellants that non-examination of any one of the attesting witnesses is not fatal. Identifying the witnesses is enough who has seen the testator executing the Will signing the same in his presence. Therefore, the Will is validly proved. It appears that an application was also filed before the First Appellate Court to examine one of the attesting witnesses and for reasons not known arc found in the papers. The application was ulti- niatcly dismissed by the Appellate Court along with the appeal. Whether additional evidence was sought to be taken up in the beginning or not is not made clear either in the judgment or in any one of the records available. The application was ulti- niatcly dismissed by the Appellate Court along with the appeal. Whether additional evidence was sought to be taken up in the beginning or not is not made clear either in the judgment or in any one of the records available. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court which dismissal came to be confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs are seeking admission of this second appeal before the Court. One of the main contentions raised by the plaintiffs is that an identifying witness who has seen the process of the testator executing the Will is enough to prove the Will and examination of such identifying witnesses must be construed as valid in the eye of law. Though they may not be technically called as contesting witness they must be construed to be a contesting witness and consequently Will should have been proved. ( 7 ) I do not agree. The legislature in its wisdom thought while enacting Section 68 of the evidence Act, that a document required by law to be attested shall be proved at least by one of the attesting witnesses otherwise it cannot be held to be proved. Section 69 contemplates the situation wherein no attesting witness is found. I am extracting below Sections 68 and 69 of the evidence Act. "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested: if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least 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, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. 69. 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 word attested has been defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act as follows: " "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". ( 8 ) WHEN it is thought fit to take so much of care and caution to not only make provision for proving document which required to be attested by calling upon one of the testator minimum and also have chosen to define the word attested under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, such solitary provision cannot be ignored especially by a Court of law. Otherwise there is no meaning in such enactments on the definitions forthcoming. Therefore prima facie, I am satisfied that an identifying witness or anybody present and saw the testator signing the document will not be enough to prove the Will. There is a legal proposition and a reason behind such enactment, the man who goes for attesting the Will is supposed to be aware of the execution of the Will by testator and he is called upon to attesting. Therefore, the caution and care will be on the testator and not a man's attitude as to how he behaves whether he was in a proper mental state and these will be the cautions the testator would take. Therefore, the caution and care will be on the testator and not a man's attitude as to how he behaves whether he was in a proper mental state and these will be the cautions the testator would take. These care and caution cannot be accepted from casual identifying person and who just goes there and identifies the testator or anybody for that purpose. Therefore, I am clear in my opinion that there can never be any exertion to examination of an attesting witness to prove the document which requires in law to be attested. The various authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate court do not apply to the facts of this case and they have been rightly rejected by the Courts below. ( 9 ) ON this ground alone, the appeal has to be dismissed. ( 10 ) IT is also seen that one of the daughters alone is preferred when the other two daughters are living. There is no reason forthcoming for choosing one of the daughters to the exclusion of the two other daugh-ters. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when one of the legal heirs is excluded from succeeding to the property of the testator, the Court should be cautious in giving its consent or assent to the validity of the Will. There should be a specific reason given for such exclusion and which reason should be probable, acceptable and testable in any Court of law. This position is also absent in this case. The Courts below have rightly commented upon this aspect of the case and hold that there is no acceptable reason forthcoming for excluding two daughters and preferring one daughter alone. ( 11 ) THE third aspect of the matter is that if the propounder participates in the preparation of the will then again the Supreme Court has considered and held such circumstance shall be construed as a suspicious circumstance. Now, in this case, the Trial Court has found that the husband of the plaintiff was playing an active role in preparation of the Will and registration thereon. P. W. 2 has categorically stated in his evidence that the husband is residing in the house of his father-in-law since 18 years, since then, he was also assisting his father-in-law in doing agricultural work of his father-in-law. P. W. 2 has categorically stated in his evidence that the husband is residing in the house of his father-in-law since 18 years, since then, he was also assisting his father-in-law in doing agricultural work of his father-in-law. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that.-" therefore, from the above said evidence it is clear that the plaintiff and her husband were residing along with her father and they were managing the affairs of the family and therefore, this has given a scope for the plaintiff to get this Will from her father exclusively to herself. On this ground also, plaintiffs must fail. Looking at all the three points of view, I find that judgment rendered by the Courts below is proper, correct and reasonable. Apart from the concurrent findings of facts, I am also satisfied that there is not merit in the appeal and this appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage as involving no question of law much less substantial question of law.