Judgment 1. A question of law does arise in the present Regular Second Appeal. Before, however, the question as such may be formulated, it would be worthwhile to reproduce order dated 3-5-1984 passed by this Court when the matter came up for motion hearing. Same runs thus :- "The learned counsel states that the Will is attested only by Hargu Lal as an attesting witness and Sunder Lal Lambardar had only appeared before the Sub-Registrar to attest the registration. According to the statement of Sunder Lal read in the Court, I find that he clearly stated that he attested the Will as an attesting witness. Nevertheless, if there was only one attesting witness, the Will would not be legal and to show that there was only one attesting witness, opportunity is granted to the appellant to produce a photostat copy of the Will. If the appellant is not able to secure the photostat copy of the Will, he may file his affidavit in this Court specifically stating whether the Will was attested by Sunder Lal Lambardar as an attesting witness or not so that in case the affidavit is found to be false, he may be prosecuted for perjury. The case is adjourned to 16-7-1984." 2. It is on the production of certified copy of the Will, wherein, only one witness, namely, Hargu Lal was shown to have attested the Will at the time of its execution and when the Will was placed on record that notice of motion was issued for 28-8-1984 as would be apparent from the order recorded on the said date and it is after hearing learned counsel representing the parties that the matter was admitted on 11-9-1984. 3. Question of law that arises in the present case is as to whether a Will, which is attested by only one witness, in contrast to the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , which enjoins that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will, would be an invalid and inadmissible document. 4. Question of law as formulated above arises from the facts which need a necessary mention. 4. Question of law as formulated above arises from the facts which need a necessary mention. One Shri Baru Ram admittedly, owner of the property, subject-matter of dispute, died on 16-4-1980, leaving behind the plaintiff-appellant and mother of defendants 1 to 7, being his legal heirs. Plaintiff, being daughter of Baru Ram, claimed ½ share of his property and cash amount towards Provident Fund etc. on the basis of natural succession. The matter was contested by the respondents herein on the basis of Will, Ex. D1, dated 12-4-1979. Learned Subordinate Judge, before whom the matter came up for final adjudication, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following four issues :- "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share of Provident Fund or contribution of late shri Baru Ram her father amounting to Rs. 4000.00 on account of Provident Fund or any other account ? (ii) Whether the deceased Baru Ram executed any valid Will in favour of the defendant No. 1, regarding disputed amount of Rs. 4000.00 ? (iii) Whether the amount of Rs. 4000.00 deposited with the defendant No. 2 by the deceased Baru Ram was as a loan or as provident fund ? (iv) Relief." 5. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22-2-1983. Constrained, the plaintiff-appellant filed appeal, which too was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 28-1-1984. 6. I have examined Will, Ex. D-1, dated 12-4-1979, which is a certified copy of the original issued from the office of Sub-Registrar, Ambala. Unmistakably, only one person, namely Hargu Lal son of Ram Chander, had attested the Will. It is significant to note that the contention that the Will was not properly executed and as such could not partake the character of a legally executed Will, as it was attested only by one witness, was raised before learned appellate Court but the same was left undecided. There has been no dispute, however, even during the course, the matter was pending before learned trial Court and appellate Court or for that matter, even before this Court, that the Will as such had been attested only by one witness, even though, it has been the case of the defendants that Sunder Lal, Lambardar, who appeared before the Registrar at the time of registration of the Will, should be deemed to be the second attesting witness of the Will. 7. 7. After hearing learned counsel representating the parties and examining the records and in particular, Will, Ex. D-1, with their assistance, the Court is of the firm view that when execution of an instrument is regulated by statute, which prescribed its procedure as well, the same has to be executed, in the manner, as provided in the Statute. Sub-clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , which deals with execution of unprivileged Wills, gives the mode of execution of a Will. Same reads thus:- "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." 8 A bare perusal of sub-clause (c) of Section 63 of the Act aforesaid would make it abundantly clear that the Will has to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will. The witnesses, naturally, attesting the Will, have to be two or more, who could have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will. Once, the Will has been attested only by one witness, whereas, the requirement is of two or more, naturally, the two or more witnesses could not have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will. Once, the Will is not properly executed, as per the provisions contained in sub-clause (c) of Section 63 of the Act, the same has to be held to be invalid and inadmissible document. On the basis of invalid and inadmissible Will, thus, cause of the appellant, based upon natural succession, could not be thwarted. The appellant being the daughter of deceased Baru Ram was entitled to half the share of the property, be it movable or immovable. On the basis of invalid and inadmissible Will, thus, cause of the appellant, based upon natural succession, could not be thwarted. The appellant being the daughter of deceased Baru Ram was entitled to half the share of the property, be it movable or immovable. The contest in this case was between the two daughters only and, therefore, they both are entitled to 1/2 share each of the estate of deceased Baru Ram. Order accordingly. 9. Judgment and decree passed by trial Court, confirmed by learned appellate Court, is set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.