JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann. The plaintiffs, who are respondents in the present appeal, filed a suit for declaration that they were owners of land measuring 63 kanals 16 marlas, as described in the heading of the plaint, situated in the area of village Sadhuwala with a consequential relief of possession of the same. The suit was decreed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Zira vide judgment dated 20.4.1982. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants-appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur on 6.12.1984. Hence, the present second appeal by them. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that Sham Singh son of Punjab Singh was owner of the suit land. After his death, which took place about 20 years before filing of the suit, the suit land was inherited by his wife Smt. Kauri, who also died some three years back. The couple was issueless. Sham Singh had three brothers, namely Waryam Singh, Prem Singh and Khem Singh, besides two sisters, namely, Smt. Sobhi and Smt. Basso. The plaintiffs were the children of aforementioned Waryam Singh, Prem Singh, Khem Singh and Smt. Basso, whereas Smt. Sobhi died issueless. They were thus, entitled to inherit the suit land. On the other hand, the defendants, who were the brother’s sons of Smt. Kauri, managed to get the mutation of inheritance of Smt. Kauri sanctioned in their favour on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Smt. Kauri in their favour. It was pleaded that Smt. Kauri never executed any Will and the Will in question had been forged and fabricated after her death. 3. While opposing the suit, the defendants admitted the relationship of the parties and also the fact that Sham Singh and Smt. Kauri died issueless. However, they asserted that Smt. Kauri executed a valid Will on 25.11.1963 in their favour which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Zira on 26.11.1963. On the basis of the same, mutation was rightly sanctioned in their favour. Smt. Kauri had executed the Will in favour of the defendants for the services rendered to her by them. They further pleaded that the said Will had been handed over by Smt. Kauri to them and they had put the same in a wooden-box lying in their kotha but the said kotha was damaged in July, 1978 due to heavy rains. They further pleaded that the said Will had been handed over by Smt. Kauri to them and they had put the same in a wooden-box lying in their kotha but the said kotha was damaged in July, 1978 due to heavy rains. All the documents, including the Will lying in the wooden-box were destroyed. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:­ “1. Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Kauri -deceased? OPP: 2. Whether Smt. Kauri deceased executed a valid Will dated 25.11.1963 in favour of the defendants? OPD. 3. Relief.” 5. Learned trial Court held the plaintiffs to be the heirs of Sham Singh and thus, entitled to succeed to his estate. It was also held that the defendants utterly failed to prove the Will dated 25.11.1963. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and the plaintiffs were declared as owners of the suit land. A decree for possession of the suit land was passed in their favour with costs. The findings arrived at by the trial Court were upheld in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, who dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs. Hence, the present second appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the evidence led by them. 7. The main question in the present appeal is regarding the validity of Will dated 25.11.1963. It was said to have been registered by Sub Registrar, Zira on 26.11.1963. 8. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the proof of execution of a document which is required by law to be attested. Such a document cannot be read into evidence unless and until one attesting witness comes in the witness-box for proving its execution. 9. The Will in question was said to have been attested by Hakam Singh and Karnail Singh, residents of village Sadhuwala. Out of them, Karnail Singh had died, whereas Hakam Singh, the other attesting witness was very much alive when the trial of the suit took place. He was not produced by the defendants so as to prove the execution of the Will dated 25.11.1963. The plea taken by the defendants that he had been won over by the other side and therefore not examined does not hold any water. He was not produced by the defendants so as to prove the execution of the Will dated 25.11.1963. The plea taken by the defendants that he had been won over by the other side and therefore not examined does not hold any water. How could they themselve decide that Hakam Singh was not going to support their case in regard to the execution of the Will. A duty was cast upon them to produce Hakam Singh in the Court and only thereafter the Court could find out as to whether Hakam Singh was speaking truth or not. When the defendants failed to produce Hakam Singh, who was the only attesting witness alive, the learned lower Courts were justified in coming to a conclusion that there was no formal proof of execution of the Will in question. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the registration of the Will in question was sufficient proof of its due execution by Smt. Kauri and therefore, the Will can be read into evidence. In support of this proposition, learned counsel has relied upon Jarnail Singh Vs. Narain Singh and others 1984 Revenue Law Reporter 131. 11. I have perused the aforementioned judgment. In that case the attesting witnesses were not produced though they were summoned because they demanded price for deposing in favour of the party summoning them. Further, the Sub Registrar, who had registered the Will had stepped into the witness-box as DW3. However, in the present case though one attesting witness, namely, Karnail Singh had died the other attesting witness Hakam Singh was never summoned by the defendants. Moreover, the Sub Registrar, who registered the Will dated 25.11.1963 was also not examined as a witness by the defendants so as to prove the execution of the Will. The defendants felt contended in examining only Brij Mohan, Document Writer, Zira DW1 and Janak Raj, Registration Clerk in the office of the Registrar, Ferozepur DW5. Therefore, the aforementioned judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to Charan Dass Vs. Piara Lal 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 289, submitted that even the testimony of the scribe was sufficient to prove the execution of the Will. 13. In the above noted judgment, the party in whose favour there was a registered Will, had summoned one of the attesting witnesses. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to Charan Dass Vs. Piara Lal 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 289, submitted that even the testimony of the scribe was sufficient to prove the execution of the Will. 13. In the above noted judgment, the party in whose favour there was a registered Will, had summoned one of the attesting witnesses. Further, the Will was also proved by the Sub Registrar and therefore, it was held that when the scribe had also deposed in the case as a witness, the Will was found to be firmly proved. On the other hand, in the present case, neither any attesting witness was examined nor the Sub Registrar before whom presence the testator and the two attesting witnesses had appeared and admitted the execution of the Will, was examined by the defendants. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Makhan Ram alias Makhan Singh Vs. Ujagar Ram (died) through L.Rs 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 207 and submitted that as the defendants failed to examine one of the two attesting witnesses of the Will, they did not discharge the onus of proof in proving the due execution of the same. It was held in the said judgment that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act although both the attesting witnesses were not required to be produced but at least one attesting witness should have been examined to prove the due execution of the Will in terms of Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 15. In view of the above, the substantial question of law as claimed by the appellants that where one of the two attesting witnesses is dead and the second one is not produced having been won over by the other side, whether the execution of a registered Will can be proved by the testimonies of the scribe and the registration Clerk concerned does not arise. No case is made out for grant of any interference in the finding of facts recorded by the learned lower Courts, whereby the suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of the defendants dismissed by learned lower Appellate Court. The appeal, being without any merit, is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. ----------------