Judgment :- M. Thanikachalam, J. The plaintiff seeks probate of the Will dated 11.9.1990 said to have been executed by the deceased Dr. F.D. Wilson, who died on 15.8.1992. 2. Plaintiff's case in brief: (a) Dr. F.D. Wilson married the second defendant on 23.4.1947. However, their marriage life was not happy resulting in judicial separation as per the order dated 19.4.1950 in O.S.No.11 of 1949, which was confirmed in appeal also. The first defendant is the daughter of Dr. F.D. Wilson, through the second defendant. Because of the judicial separation, which was confirmed, resulting in divorce, the defendants are not the legal heirs of the deceased Dr. F.D. Wilson. However, they have filed caveats and therefore, they have been shown as defendants. (b) Dr. F.D. Wilson, while he was in a disposing state of mind, duly executed a Will at Madras on 11.9.1990, in the presence of two witnesses by name K. Chandrasekaran and M.R. Mani, which has been registered on 13.9.1990 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Alandur as Document No.70 of 1990. Under the Will, the plaintiff, who is the nephew of the deceased is named as the sole executor and no other person has been appointed as co-executor, either Ex Pressly or according to the tenor of the Will. Hence it is prayed, that the plaintiff may be allowed to prove the last testament of the Will of Dr. F.D. Wilson for grant of probate. 3. First defendant's case in brief. (a) At the time of the execution of the Will dated 11.9.1990, this defendant's father was aged about 75 years. For the past more than 5 years prior to his death, he was suffering from acute Parkinsons disease coupled with Alzheimers disease, both are progressive, and degenerative - diseases. The result of the disease would be that one would forget, what he said even two minutes prior and he cannot describe anything cogently because of unsound memory. In the month of June 1989, the father of the plaintiff visited her at Malavadi, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, where she was working and at that time, the disease had advanced much and his physical condition was also so weak requiring assistance even to stand up and had to be physically fed and was very slow in comprehension. In the month of June 1989, the father of the plaintiff visited her at Malavadi, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, where she was working and at that time, the disease had advanced much and his physical condition was also so weak requiring assistance even to stand up and had to be physically fed and was very slow in comprehension. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that between June 1989 and September 1990, when the alleged last Will and Testament was said to have been executed, his physical condition must have been really bad and definitely worse than before and this being the position, it is incorrect to state that he had executed the Will while he was in a sound disposing state of mind. (b) The Will is a fabricated one and has been made under highly suspicious circumstances. The deceased must have been under grave undue influence and he would not have executed the Will voluntarily, which could be seen from the interpolations available in the Will, not attested by anybody including the attester. The intrinsic evidence available would suggest that the testator was being unduly influenced by the beneficiaries or the Will should have been forced on the, testator or should have been fabricated by them in view of the fact, it was impossible for the testator to have remembered all his nephews, as narrated in the Will. (c) This defendant was not even informed by anyone about the death of her father. The alleged sale by her father in respect of Gandhi Nagar Property was also not in formed including the shifting of the residence from Gandhi Nagar to St. Thomas Mount. When this defendant met her father, he was in bed, unable to move because of the suffering from Parkinson’s disease and also Alzheimers disease, both of which certainly affected the brain and in this view, he would not have been in a sound disposing state of mind, when the alleged Will was said to have been executed. (d) This defendant on seeing the obituary column in the newspaper alone, came to know about the death of her father on 15.8.1992. The Will was read over on 19.8.1992. On seeing the Will, this defendant is of the view that the same is not properly attested, which could be seen from the alleged signatures of the attesting witnesses. (d) This defendant on seeing the obituary column in the newspaper alone, came to know about the death of her father on 15.8.1992. The Will was read over on 19.8.1992. On seeing the Will, this defendant is of the view that the same is not properly attested, which could be seen from the alleged signatures of the attesting witnesses. The alleged beneficiaries, taking advantage of the old age of the testator, his physical and mental incapacity, if at all would have fabricated the Will, which cannot be termed as last Will and Testament. The un-naturality of the Will could be seen from the fact, that the only beloved daughter was not given due share, whereas, she was equated with some one who is residing permanently in England. The very fact, the miserly share is given to this defendant would suggest that the Will is not natural and probable. For these reasons, it is prayed the suit may be dismissed with costs. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial as per the order of this Court dated 6.12.2000. a) Whether the Will dated 11.9.1990 is true and genuine? b) Whether the testator was in sound disposing state of mind, at the time of the alleged execution of the Will? c) Whether there was undue influence in the execution of the Will? d) Whether the interpolations in the Will amount to suspicious circumstances? e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of probate? Issue Nos. a to d 5. Ex.P1 is the original registered Will said to have been executed by one Dr. F.D. Wilson on 11.9.1990, which is registered as Docu­ment No.70 of 1990 on 13.9.1990. The plain­tiff is the elder sister's son of Dr. F.D. Wilson. The second defendant is the wife of the testator and the first defendant is their daughter. After the marriage, within the short time, it appears, the second defendant sepa­rated herself and she was living independently receiving maintenance from her husband and at present she is no more. The first defendant is the daughter of the deceased Dr. F.D. Wil­son and the second defendant, is not in dis­pute, though in the plaint it is stated that the second defendant is not his heir. The testator died on 15.8.1992. The first defendant is the daughter of the deceased Dr. F.D. Wil­son and the second defendant, is not in dis­pute, though in the plaint it is stated that the second defendant is not his heir. The testator died on 15.8.1992. After the death, on the date of thanks-giving ceremony on 19.8.1992, the Will was read over in the presence of some of the beneficiaries including the first defendant. Some of the beneficiaries appeared to have admitted the Will and said no objection about the Will as evidenced by Ex P3. But the first defendant, who was present, later received some of the articles as detailed in the Will, but has not signed in the proceedings drawn by the Executor viz., the plaintiff. Thus it appears the Will was disputed by the daughter of the testa­tor, when she had the first occasion. Because of the above facts, as well as the factual posi­tion that the Will was executed at Madras and the properties set out therein are situated in Madras, originally OP was filed seeking pro­bate and upon entrance of the LRs of the testa­tor, as caveators, it was converted into suit. 6. In the plaint, in the usual way, the execution of the Will and the attestation of the same by the attesting witnesses are stated in Para 4. The contesting defendants in a way more or less admitting the signatures of her father in the Will would contend, that the Will is fabricated one and the same could not have been executed by the testator voluntarily, because of the fact, that he was suffering from Parkinsons and also Alzheimers disease, which should have affected the mental equilibrium, preventing the conscious disposition also. Thus the Will is questioned by one of the heirs of the deceased. Therefore, it is for the propounder of the Will, who claims as the sole executor under Ex P1, to prove that the Will was executed by Dr. F.D. Wilson, while he was in a sound disposing state of mind and the same was duly attested, as contemplated under the Indian Succession Act 1925 (in short 'the Act'). 7. Chapter II of the Act deals with Wills and Codicils. Section 59 of the Act qualifies the persons, who are all competent to execute a Will. Section 61 of the Act says, Will obtained by fraud, coercion or importunity is void. 7. Chapter II of the Act deals with Wills and Codicils. Section 59 of the Act qualifies the persons, who are all competent to execute a Will. Section 61 of the Act says, Will obtained by fraud, coercion or importunity is void. Then Chapter III Section 63 of the Act guides, how a valid Will should be executed. According to this Section, (i) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will. (ii) The testator should have signed in the Will with an intention to give effect to the writing of a Will. (iii) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator sign or his mark. If the above ingredients are not available or not satisfied, then the Court should declare, that it is not a Will or the last testament of the executant, as known to law. The mere physical presence of the above said conditions, are not sufficient to conclude automatically, that the document is a Will, whereas it should be proved, as mandated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. There is no doubt that Will is a document required by law to be attested as said in Section 63(c) of the Act. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act says: "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.” Therefore, the witness who is to be called as said in Section 68 must be an attesting witness, not an ordinary person, who had signed in the document for some other purpose. 9. 9. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, defines "attested", 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 acknowledgment 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." thereby showing a person in order to come within the meaning of attesting witness, he must have seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument or he should have received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark. Therefore, a person, who has signed in the instrument without seeing or not receiving the personal acknowledgment from the executant about his/her signature, will not be called as an attesting witnesses. 10. As ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sridevi & others v. Jayaraja Shelty & others 2005 (2) LW 89 that the Will had been disclosed to the respondent at the time of final obeisance ceremony of the deceased is one of the grounds favourable to the propounder provided the execution and attestation are proved as understood by law. It is also ruled in the above decision as follows: "Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain and should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters". If that is proved, then when the Will is contested alleging undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus will be on the contesting party to prove the same, which is also ruled so in the above decision. 11. If that is proved, then when the Will is contested alleging undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus will be on the contesting party to prove the same, which is also ruled so in the above decision. 11. The propounder of the Will has to show; (1) that the Will was signed by the testator; (2) that he was at the relevant time in sound disposing state of mind; (3) that he understood the nature and effect of dispositions and had put his/her signatures to the testament of his/her own free Will; and (4) that he/she had signed it in the presence of two Witnesses, who attested in his/her presence and in the presence of each other. 12. In H. Venkatachala v. A N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 , it is ruled, as early as in 1959 that the Will has to be proved like any other document, except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the unusual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. Then coming to the specialty of the Will, the Supreme Court has observed since the Will speaks from the death of the testator, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say, whether it is his Will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last Will and testament of the de- parted testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of Wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document, on his own free will. 13. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document, on his own free will. 13. When there are suspicious circumstances by going through the testament or from any other attending circumstances, that have to be dispelled by the propounder then only the testament could be called a document executed by the testator out of free will voluntarily knowing the contents therein. Some of the suspicious circumstances may be: (1) Regarding the propounder taking prominent part in the execution of the Will, receiving substantial benefit; (2) Regarding the genuineness of the signature of the testator; (3) the condition of the testator's mind viz., feeble mind which is likely to be influenced; (4) the disposition made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair and unjust disposal of the property in the light of relevant circumstances; or (5) There might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, as ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indu Bala Bose v. Mahindra Chandra AIR 1982 SC 133 : 1982 (1) SCC 20 which is reiterated in Meenakshiammal (Dead) through LRs & Others v. Chandrasekaran & Another 2005 (2) LW 731, the Court would normally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed, before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator (vide para 16 of the judgment). 14. It is also held in Indu Bala (supra) that taking into account that the Will might be unnatural, that alone is not a suspicious circumstance, in view of the fact, for the reasons known to the testator, he ought to have excluded the person, who may be entitled to inherit his properties, if he died intestate. If that reason is made out, then preventing the natural heirs from inheriting the property by leaving a testament, cannot be doubted and this cannot be a suspicious circumstance also in the ordinary course. In this view, it is said in the above decision, a circumstance would be 'suspicious' when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not accepted of a normal person. 15. In this view, it is said in the above decision, a circumstance would be 'suspicious' when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not accepted of a normal person. 15. Law is very clear, that the attestation must be proved, to have been made as required by Section 63(c) of the Act. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates, to admit in evidence, a document which is required by law to be attested, at least one attesting witness to be called, for the purpose of proving its execution, if the attesting witnesses are alive. It is not the mandate of law always, that all the attesting witnesses should be called for the purpose of proving the execution of the Will. In this view, if one attesting witness is able to prove the execution and his evidence satisfies the requirement of attestation of a Will by other witness also, then examination of another attesting witness could be dispensed with as ruled by the Apex Court in Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam AIR 2003 SC 761 . Having the above said settled legal principles, we have to scan and assess the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, to prove the valid execution as well as the attestation of the Will. 16. In the case on hand as seen from Ex P1, two witnesses appeared to have signed as attesting witnesses out of which one witness alone has been examined as PW2. It is not the case of the propounder that the other attesting witness is not alive or by reasonable search and effort, he cannot be traced out secured, to give evidence. PW2, if he had given evidence, which I will discuss infra, satisfying not only his attestation, but also the attestation of another witness, then the non examination of another attesting witness may not loom large. PW2, if he had given evidence, which I will discuss infra, satisfying not only his attestation, but also the attestation of another witness, then the non examination of another attesting witness may not loom large. On the other hand, if the oral evidence of PW2 fails in standard not only to prove his attestation, but also the attestation of another witness, then it should be held, that the document is not attested by, two witnesses, which should follow, it is not a Will as contemplated under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, which should further follow' on the basis of the alleged testimony, whether it is the last testament of the executor or not, the plaintiff who claims as the sole executor cannot have any relief. In the light of the above settled position of law, we have to examine, as to whether Ex P1 had been duly executed, and the propounder viz., the plaintiff had dispelled the suspicious circumstances, surrounding the Will as pointed out by the learned counsel for the contesting defendants. To ascertain what are the suspicious circumstances that may be available, we have to see the mental condition of the testator, his relation or the closeness with the propounder, beneficiaries and the daughter viz., the first defendant. 17. The testator died at the age of 74, on 15.8.1992. The Will in question came into existence on 11.9.1990 i.e., to say when the testator was aged about 72. It is the specific case of the daughter, that her father was suffering from acute Parkinsons disease, coupled with Alzheimrs disease, both are progressive and degenerative disease. It is not the case of the propounder, that Dr. F.D. Wilson was not at all affected by any such disease and in fact, it could be said, that he was suffering from the above diseases, which is well established by documents. As seen from Ex.P8, Dr. F.D. Wilson was admitted in Chennai Kaliappa Hospital on 25.2.1992 for the treatment of Parkinsonims with Bronchitis. The patient's history is narrated in the discharge summary, which says that he is a known case of Parkinsonism for the past three years, on treatment. That means from 1989, as proved, Dr. F.D. Wilson was suffering from Parkinsionism. The history traced in Ex.D8, is not challenged. The patient's history is narrated in the discharge summary, which says that he is a known case of Parkinsonism for the past three years, on treatment. That means from 1989, as proved, Dr. F.D. Wilson was suffering from Parkinsionism. The history traced in Ex.D8, is not challenged. DW1 herself, being a doctor, explained the effect of Parkinsons disease, how it degenerates the brain cells and what would be the position of a person, who is affected by this kind of disease. 18. As seen from Medical Science 'Parkinsons' disease is a brain disorder. It occurs when certain nerve cells (neurons) in a part of the brain called the substantia nigra die or become impaired. Normally, these cells produce a vital chemical known as dopamine. Dopamine allows smooth, coordinated function of the body's muscles and movement. When approximately 80% of the dopamine producing cells are damaged, the symptoms of Parkinsons, disease appear. The symptoms of Parkinsons disease are the loss of dopamine in the brain which causes the primary symptoms of Parkinsons disease. The key signs of Parkinsons disease are: Tremor (shaking) Slowness of movement Rigidity (stiffness) Difficulty with balance. Other signs of Parkinsons disease may include: -Small, cramped handwriting - Stiff facial Expression - Shuffling walk -Muffled speech - Depression. 19. Alzheimer's disease is defined as follows: Dementia is a brain disorder that seriously affects a person’s, ability to carry out daily activities. The most common form of dementia among older people is Alzheimer's disease (AD), which initially involves the parts of the brain that control thought memory, and lan­guage. AD is a slow disease, starting with mild memory problems and ending with severe brain damage. The course the disease takes and how fast changes occur vary from person to person. On average, AD patients live from 8 to 10 years after they are diagnosed, though the disease can last for as long as 20 years. The term "dementia" describes a group of symptoms that are caused by changes in brain function. Dementia symptoms may include asking the same questions repeatedly; becoming lost in familiar places; being unable to follow directions; getting disoriented about time, people and places; and neglecting personal safety, hygiene, and nutrition. People with dementia lose their abilities at different rates. The symptom of AD is the mild forgetfulness, which can be confused with age-related memory change. Dementia symptoms may include asking the same questions repeatedly; becoming lost in familiar places; being unable to follow directions; getting disoriented about time, people and places; and neglecting personal safety, hygiene, and nutrition. People with dementia lose their abilities at different rates. The symptom of AD is the mild forgetfulness, which can be confused with age-related memory change. The effects are: Loses spark or zest for life, does not start anything. Loses recent memory without a change in appearance of casual conversion. Loses judgment about money. Has difficulty with new learning and making new memories. Has trouble finding words, may substitute or make up words that sound like or mean something like the forgotten word. Easily loses way going to familiar places. Won’t make decisions. Forgets to eat, eats only one kind of food, or eats constantly. Poor judgment creates safety issues, when left alone may wander and risk exposure, poisoning, falls, self-neglect or exploitation. Has trouble following written notes or completing tasks. May be able to read but cannot formulate the correct response to a written request. May become sloppy Or forget manners. Remembering the above medical evidence, this case should be seen. 20. It is pleaded in Para 3 of the counter how her, father's physical condition was in the month of June 1989. As seen from Ex D7 on 2.7.1989, he addressed the first defendant as 'My dear child', showing affection certainly not Ex Posing any, hatred, which he might have had against the wife. Pursuant to Ex D7, it appears, the testator had been to the place where D1 was working and had food also which ' is appreciated in Ex D3. The letters' written by the deceased also -would indicate that he might have been suffering from the abovesaid disease and that is why his handwriting and signatures were so shaky as seen from the abovesaid documents. Such a person is said to have executed the Will on 11.9.1990 and therefore, the Propounder should erase from the mind of this Court, about the testamentary capacity of the testator. As indicated above, a person, who is affected by the diseases called Parkinsons and Alzheimer's may not be in a Position to execute a document that too giving instructions to, an unknown, person, wherein also, in preparing the document there are certain mysterious circumstances, which are also not explained. 21. As indicated above, a person, who is affected by the diseases called Parkinsons and Alzheimer's may not be in a Position to execute a document that too giving instructions to, an unknown, person, wherein also, in preparing the document there are certain mysterious circumstances, which are also not explained. 21. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants that the propounder of the Will viz., PW1 should have played a key role in getting Ex. P1, under a key role in which he and his other close relatives have derived major benefits, giving only a miserly share to the daughter, appears to be well-founded. When the testator had so much of affection towards the first de­ seen there would not from the abovesaid letters, have been any reason to exclude her from inheriting the property or allotting major Property to her instead of choosing his brothers, and sisters' sons and grand-sons etc., that too even some of the People who are Permanently residing in foreign 'doubtful whether a Person soil. It is by Parkinsons disease, who was affected would have and Alzheimers disease relatives so remembered all the names of his as to include them in From the evidence mouth of PW3 also, it is not clear that the testator would have instructed him, to prepare the Will, furnishing the names and addresses of he beneficiaries. Taking into account this aspect viz., all the beneficiaries are closely related to PW1, ordinarily one should think, without exception that PW1 would have played a key role in bringing the Will, probably using his influence, taking advantage of the loneliness of the testator, in view of the admitted position, wife and daughter were living elsewhere receiving maintenance alone. 22. PW1 would state that at the time of the execution of the, Will be was not present whereas he was in Bombay. He has also further asserted, that he had nothing to do with the preparation of Ex P1, Will, asserting he had not suggested any lawyer's name to his uncle for the execution of the Will. However, he would admit, that he was in touch with his uncle prior to his death in 1992. It is also admitted by him, that he was aged about 74. Originally Dr. F.D. Wilson was residing at Adyar. Thereafter he shifted to St. Thomas Mount. However, he would admit, that he was in touch with his uncle prior to his death in 1992. It is also admitted by him, that he was aged about 74. Originally Dr. F.D. Wilson was residing at Adyar. Thereafter he shifted to St. Thomas Mount. Out of anxiety, forgetting the disease, which was having control over F.D. Wilson, PW1 has gone to the extent of saying that he was mobile, used to walk from St. Thomas Mount to Adyar, which is highly artificial, to make it appear as if he was in a sound health. This kind of unadulterated false evidence has been given by PW1 and therefore, it is not possible to accept his oral testimony that he has not played any role in the preparation of the Will or he was not present at the time of the execution of the Will. The oral evidence of PW1 is belied by the oral evidence of PW3. 23. PW3 would state that the testator could not have walked from St. Thomas Mount to Adyar in 1990. He further says, when he went to his house, he had seen him sitting in a wheel chair, thereby showing the testator was immobilised more or less i.e. due to Parkinsons disease. This being the position, PW1 Would state that the testator used to walk from St. Thomas Mount to Adyar and believing such person's oral evidence, affixing the seal of genuineness over Ex P1 may not be proper. 24. An unexplained mysterious circumstance is shown to exist about the custody of the Will. It is not known from the reading of the evidence available on record, who has produced the original Will at the time of prayer meeting on 19.8.1992. It is also not known, who was having the custody of Ex P1, after its registration or after the death of the testator. There is no evidence that the testator had entrusted the Will to any one of the beneficiaries. PW1 would say that after the prayer meeting, Mr. Prabhakaran, advocate, called and read out the Will, admitting he does not know in whose custody Ex P1 Will was, after its execution, till it was handed over to him, probably according to him by PW3, advocate, Mr. Prabhakaran. PW1 would say that after the prayer meeting, Mr. Prabhakaran, advocate, called and read out the Will, admitting he does not know in whose custody Ex P1 Will was, after its execution, till it was handed over to him, probably according to him by PW3, advocate, Mr. Prabhakaran. It is not the case of PW3 that he has handed over the Will to PW1 In fact, PW3 would state, "I do not remember the name of the person who called me to Wilson's prayer meeting. I do not remember as to who gave the Will to me to enable me to read out the same". The above evidence would disclose that the Will was given by somebody to PW3 for the purpose of reading the same at the time of the prayer on 19.8.1992. This being the position, PW1 would state he does not know in whose custody Ex.P1 Will was after its execution till it was handed over to him. The non explanation of the proper custody of the Will also would suggest it must have been in the custody of PW1, because of the fact he should have played a predominant role in obtaining the Will, which could be seen from the cross-examination of PW3. 25. PW1 asserted that at the time of the execution of the Will, he was residing in Bombay, but has not stated specifically that on the date of execution of the Will, he was not at Madras. As admitted by PW1, he used to help his uncle Dr. F.D. Wilson, whenever occasion comes. It is not his case that he introduced PW3 to the testator previously. It is also not the case of PW3 that he knew Dr. F.D. Wilson previously, since he has stated, I do not know late F.D. Wilson personally. This being the position, it is not known how Dr. F.D. Wilson contacted him for the preparation of the alleged Will. The evidence given by PW3 as to how he was summoned by F.D. Wilson, where he received the message is not consistent and therefore, it cannot be said positively that only at the request of F.D. Wilson, PW3 might have gone to his place for the preparation of the Will. The evidence given by PW3 as to how he was summoned by F.D. Wilson, where he received the message is not consistent and therefore, it cannot be said positively that only at the request of F.D. Wilson, PW3 might have gone to his place for the preparation of the Will. When PW3 was specifically questioned whether he knew PW1, being an advocate, he must be certain and should have given positive evidence, whether he knew him personally, whether he was present at the time of the execution of the Will etc., at least recalling the incident. But his answer reads: "I am not sure whether I knew Marcus Dare, PW1. I do not remember whether I knew Marcus Dare at that time and that it was he who asked me to come and that he was present at the time of execution of Ex P1 Will". 26. The abovesaid answer coupled with mysterious circumstance about the production of the Will without disclosing the proper custody also had created an indelible suspicious circumstance, which is not even attempted to be erased by acceptable evidence. The learned counsel for the defendant invited my attention to the conduct of PW1 in the disposal of Adyar property by the testator, PW1 though had exhibited his ignorance about the disposal of the property by the testator, which we are not very much concerned in this case, was compelled to accept by the production of Ex. D1, which is in his handwriting as admitted in the cross examination. When PW1 was cross-examined on 3.4.2001 about the sale of the house at Adyar and the purchase of the house at St. Thomas Mount, admitting he was present as well as his role in the negotiation, went to the extent of saying on 13.7.2001 that he did not remember the price for the property, terms of the sale deed, etc., though he himself had written in Ex.D.1 about the price and some other details. Thus it is demonstrated that PW1 is not a person to be trusted and it appears, he is giving evidence to suit the convenience, not exposing the real facts. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that he was not present at the time of the execution of the Will. Thus it is demonstrated that PW1 is not a person to be trusted and it appears, he is giving evidence to suit the convenience, not exposing the real facts. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that he was not present at the time of the execution of the Will. If he was not present at the time of the registration of the Will and the registered Will was not handed over to him, some of the beneficiaries must have been present at the time of the registration of the Will and any one of the beneficiaries should have been in possession of Ex.P1. Therefore, the said person ought to have been examined to prove the proper custody of the Will and how the Will was registered and how the Will came into the possession of the beneficiary etc., and there is nothing wrong. But, in order to screen certain facts, in my considered opinion, the propounder has not only suppressed the real facts, but also failed to examine, any person, as witness to prove the custody of the Will, if really he had not been in possession of the Will. In this view also, a cloud, very dark, spread over Ex.P1, is not removed by the satisfactory evidence and this being the position, the genuineness of the Will is to be doubted once again. 27. In the Will, no reason is assigned by the testator for giving major share of his properties, to his brothers' and sisters' heirs, giving a meagre share alone to his beloved daughter, who was so described, prior to the execution of the Will. DW1 has deposed that when she had been to the house of her father, she had seen him, in the bed and he was not moving freely. Therefore, to prove that at the time of the alleged execution of the Will, whether the testator was able to walk either from St.Thomas Mount to Adyar vis-a-vis or the normal walk at least somebody should have been examined to prove his physical movement, so as to say that he has gone to the Registrar's Office, on his own to register the Will, admitting the execution and his identification by other persons before the Registrar. The registration of the Will is also doubtful which I will point out while discussing the oral evidence of PW1. The registration of the Will is also doubtful which I will point out while discussing the oral evidence of PW1. Thus, the propounder failed to prove the effective movement of the testator, on the date of the execution of the Will and subsequently also, by adducing satisfactory evidence, thereby instead, of clearing the cloud, gathering more doubt, about the genuineness of the Will once again. 28. As rightly urged by the learned counsel for the contesting defendant, Mr. T.S. Sridharan, by going through Ex.P1 Will, I have my own doubt, its valid execution and the affixing of signature by the testator, knowing fully about the contents therein also. PW3 is a practising advocate. He should know the significance of the corrections if not attested. Generally whenever a document is written, later cor­rected, to rectify the mistake which crept in knowingly or unknowingly, there would be reference, in the foot of the document, about the corrections as well as the corrections would be attested. This is the normal proce­dure which we would see, in a normal docu­ment. In Ex.P1, at page No. 2, the 13th beneficiary's name is written in hand, which is exhibited as Ex D2. Originally there were 12 beneficiaries. After interpolating 13th beneficiary in the Will, correspondingly wherever No. 12' occurred, the same was corrected as 13' not only in figure, but also in word. In page 3 of Ex.P1, originally one prop­erty was given to seven persons alone, there­after, the 13th beneficiary indicated in page 2, is inserted in page 3, as 8th person. In the description of property also, extent is cor­rected, and in Item Nos.3, 4 & 5, extent is later written by hand in the typed document. Similarly a number of corrections are found in the Will. No one has spoken, that the corrections are made to the knowledge of the testa­tor, with his consent or at his instructions. PW3 would state, that hand written correc­tions were made by him. Even then it is not his case that after writing the Will, he read over to the testator, who requested him, to make nec­essary corrections or requested him to add one more beneficiary, and that is why he was com­pelled to correct the documents etc. On the other hand, the evidence of PW3 would dis­close as if he himself had corrected, and in­serted. On the other hand, the evidence of PW3 would dis­close as if he himself had corrected, and in­serted. It cannot be presumed that only at the instance of the testator alone, he should have corrected or interpolated certain words in the Will. When PW3 was not certain whether PW1 was present at the time of execution of Ex.P1 Will, it is unsafe to accept the oral evidence of PW3 that he could have prepared or drafted the Will, corrected the Will only at the in­stance of the testator. 29. As seen from Ex P1, PW3 has signed, as the person who drafted the Will. It is also not his case, that he had attested the Will. By go­ing through the evidence of PW3, I am unable to find any specific evidence, that the testator signed the Will, in his presence, accepting the contents therein. From the evidence of PW3, it is not known where the testator had signed in the Will, though he would state, that he cannot find any tremor in the signature, on the first page of Ex.P1 Will. PW3 would state, that he was present when Ex.P1 Will was regis­tered. It is not his case, that the testator re­quested him to be present or any other beneficiaries requested him to help for the reg­istration of the document. This being the posi­tion, it is not known why PW3 had been to Registrar's Office on his own, voluntarily, when he has no personal interest, the further fact being, that the testator was not at all pre­viously, closely known to him. There is no indication in Ex.P1, about the presence of PW3 at the time of registration of the Will, such as an identifying witness. PW3 would admit that after the drafting and registration of Ex.P1 Will, he had no connection with the testator or the beneficiaries. From the evi­dence of PW3 also, it is not known, who took the original Will, after its registration etc., as I have already pointed out supra. Therefore the reading of the Will alone immediately after the death of the testator will not affix the seal of genuineness over the Will. From the evi­dence of PW3 also, it is not known, who took the original Will, after its registration etc., as I have already pointed out supra. Therefore the reading of the Will alone immediately after the death of the testator will not affix the seal of genuineness over the Will. Thus, by going through the oral evidence of PW3, I am un­able to satisfy myself that he should have pre­pared the Will, only as per the instructions said to have been given by the testator and in this view, the genuineness of the Will is to be doubted, further. 30. Even ignoring the above defects or doubts or the suspicious circumstances pointed out by me, still I am of the view, if the execution of the Will is proved otherwise as understood under law, Ex.P1 could get the approval of this Court, as enforceable one, and in this view, we have to see the oral evidence of PW2, the prime witness, one of the attesters. 31. Section 63 of the Act, is very specific without exception, that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, meaning not signing in the ordinary sense, whereas making it clear, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affixing his mark of the Will. Even if the Will is not signed in the presence of the attesting witnesses, at least they must have received from the testator, personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark and thereafter each of the witnesses shall sign in the presence of the testator. 32. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act as indicated above, defines what is attestation. If we read Section 63(c) and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is clear, that if a person is to be called as an attesting witness, he should have attested the document, seeing the testator signing or affixing his name or mark in the instrument and the testator seeing the signing of the attesters in the Will, thereby meaning, attesters also should sign in the presence of the testator or the executant. If the above mandatory ingredients are absent, then the document will not come within the meaning of attested document. If it is not attested by two witnesses, then it is not a Will. If the above mandatory ingredients are absent, then the document will not come within the meaning of attested document. If it is not attested by two witnesses, then it is not a Will. If it is not a Will, then it cannot be the last Will and Testament executed by the named testator therein, which 'should further follow, the stated beneficiaries therein cannot claim any right. In Ex.P1 at page 6 under the heading witnesses, we find the writings, M.K. Raghavan, then just below M. R. Mani written by the same person with the same hand, below that the address is written by somebody, not by the person 'who wrote the previous two lines or who signed therein. Below the address of the first witness, one Chandran, who has been examined as PW2 had signed. On face value, it could be said that the document is attested by two witnesses. Therefore, we have to see whether the said witnesses have attested the Will after seeing the testator signing in the Will, in all the pages and whether the examined attester had seen the other attester signing in the Will, after seeing the testator signing in the Will or having received personal acknowledgment from the testator. 33. The entire reading of PW2's evidence, as such accepting the same as correct even, in ray judgment it fails to satisfy, the attestation as ruled by the Courts consistently. PW2 is not closely connected or associated with Dr. F. D. Wilson. In fact he admits, he does not know personally, the testator Dr. F.D. Wilson. PW2 would state that the first attesting witness, in Ex.P.1 is known to him and only at his request, on the date of the registration of the document, he requested him to sign in the Will as witness. He has further deposed, after he signed, the Will was taken inside the Registrar's Office, wherein the testator, signed in the presence of the Registrar. He would further state, the testator signed the Will, outside the office, further informing, that the Registrar came out of the office, since the testator Dr. F.D. Wilson was sitting in the car outside the office. He has not stated, anywhere that he has seen Dr. F.D. Wilson signing in Ex.P1 in all the pages and after seeing, he had attested the Will. F.D. Wilson was sitting in the car outside the office. He has not stated, anywhere that he has seen Dr. F.D. Wilson signing in Ex.P1 in all the pages and after seeing, he had attested the Will. It is also not the caw of PW2, that he signed as an attesting witness after M.R. Mani had signed, as the first attesting witness, after the testator signing in the Will. The very fact that the testator was sitting in the car would indicate, that he was unable to move fully due to the disease, which he was suffering as indicated supra. PW3 also has not, spoken even a single word about the physical as well as mental condition of the testator. He has not spoken about the corrections available in Ex.P1 also, such as whether those corrections were available at the time of the testator signing in the Will or the corrections came into existence after the testator signed in the Will, but before the document being registered etc. A cursory reading of the evidence given by PW2 falls short of standard, to prove the attestation of the Will, since PW2 has not stated, about the attestation of the document by another witness viz., M.R. Mani. As held by the Apex Court in Janki Narayan Bhoir's case (supra), the evidence of PW2 fails to satisfy the requirement of attestation of the Will by the other witness also. In the facts involved in the above case, though other attesting witness was available, he has not been examined. The witness examined failed to prove the requirement of attestation. On the facts, the Apex Court has held, in para 72 as follows: "Turning to the facts of the case on hand, it is evident that only one attesting witness Prabhakar Sinkar, examined in the case, did not prove the execution of the Will inasmuch as he did not prove the attestation of the Will by the other attesting witness Wagle, who though available was not examined. The scribe examined in the case was not an attesting witness, which is clear from the evidence on record and as rightly conceded so by learned counsel for the respondent before us. Hence, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the scribe in this case could or could not be an attesting Witness. The scribe examined in the case was not an attesting witness, which is clear from the evidence on record and as rightly conceded so by learned counsel for the respondent before us. Hence, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the scribe in this case could or could not be an attesting Witness. The evidence of Sinkar, the only attesting witness, does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act". Which principle is squarely applicable to the present case. No acceptable explanation has been given, for the non-examination of another attesting witness. PW2 has not identified either the signature of the testator or the signature of the another attesting witness. Assuming that another attesting witness is not available, steps should have been taken at least to identify the signature of the said attesting witness, as mandated under Section 69 of the Evidence Act which is also not followed in this case. 34. In similar circumstances of a case of this nature, this Court has taken the view in T. Kannaiah Rao v. Inder J Rao 1996 (II) CTC 466 that when the attesting witness has not stated, that the testator signed the Will in his presence and he attested the Will in the presence of the testator, it cannot be presumed that the Will is attested and the relevant portion in the above judgment reads: "In his evidence in the course of chief examination PW1 does not say anywhere that Krishna Bai signed the Will in his presence and that he attested the Will in the presence of Krishna Bai. What all he has stated in the course of chief examination is that the Will contains the thumb impression of Krishna Bai and that he signed the document as an attesting witness and that he has identified the thumb impression of Krishna Bai before the Sub-Registrar. " Thus observing, it is held the proof adduced falls too short of standard of proof, thereby, adding one more suspicion to the river of suspicion. 35. " Thus observing, it is held the proof adduced falls too short of standard of proof, thereby, adding one more suspicion to the river of suspicion. 35. A Division Bench of this Court also in a similar circumstance, has held in Rathinam Pillai v. Chellammal 2003 (1) CTC 271 , when the discrepancy in the evidence of one attesting witness caused doubt, whether he would have been present at the time of the execution of the testament and when no Explanation is forthcoming, why the other attesting witness was not examined, it cannot be held that the testament was true, genuine and valid, considering mere registration of the Will alone. 36. Admittedly, in the endorsement of registration, there is no indication, that this document was registered outside the Registrar's office. PW2 has not given evidence that the testator went inside the Registrar's Office, presented the Will for registration, though he is also said to have identified the testator as seen from the endorsement. He admits, in the cross-examination that since he was standing outside, he could not see what had happened inside the Registrar's Office. He would further assert, since the testator was sitting inside the car, it was not known to him, what he did inside the car, further asserting that the testator did not come out of the car. This being the position, the registration of the document itself comes under some suspicious circumstances, though a presumption may be available for the official act. Under these circumstances, the person, who had registered the document ought to have been examined, as witness to prove that while the document was registered, the testator was in sound state of mind. In the absence of any such evidence in this case, accepting the oral evidence of PW2, who alone has been examined, to prove the execution of the Will, in view of the further fact, PW3 has not spoken anything about the attestation, it is impossible to hold, that Dr. F. D. Wilson had executed the Will voluntarily without any influence out of his own will, bequeathing his properties to the persons mentioned therein. F. D. Wilson had executed the Will voluntarily without any influence out of his own will, bequeathing his properties to the persons mentioned therein. The reasonable inference that could be drawn from the above attending circumstances considering the physical and mental condition of the testator is, that the Will should have been fabricated, as rightly claimed by the daughter, by PW1, who might have dominated the mind of the testator, taking advantage of his ill health. Because of this reason alone, the alleged attester is unable to say whether the testator had signed in the Will in his presence and what was his mental and physical condition. 37. In the light of the above discussion, based upon the settled position of law, the only possible conclusion that could be drawn by this Court is that the Will dated 11.9.1990 is not true and genuine, the testator might not have been in a sound state of mind, and if at all the Will might have been obtained by PW1, by using undue influence or otherwise and the interpolation in the Will would amount to suspicious circumstances also, answering all these issues against the plaintiff. Issue No. (e) In view of the findings on the previous issues, the Will is not proved, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief, as claimed. This issue is answered accordingly. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.