JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 31.7.1990 and 10.8.1990 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack in O.S. No. 5 of 1988. Defendant No. 1 is the Appellant. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The Respondent as the Plaintiff filed the suit u/s 276 of Indian Succession Act to grant him Letters of Administration to the estate of deceased Naran Behera with a copy of the Will annexed to the same. The case of the Plaintiff was that Naran Behera died at Cuttack on 10.5.1979 and before his death he had executed a Will and writing all his property in favour of the Plaintiff who was his only son. Besides the Plaintiff, Haramani Dei-O.P. No. 1 and Ratha Behera-O.P. No. 2, the nephew of Naran Behera are only relations of the deceased. It was his specific case that he had not filed any case before any other Court for probate of the said Will. Though notice was sufficient, Ratha Behera did not file any objection in the case, but Haramani Dei contested the case and filed objection stating therein that the so called Will was not genuine and it was not executed by .the Testator in sound disposing state of mind. The Will had not been properly attested. She stated that the Will was fraudulent and suspicious in character since the Testator has not made any provision for her who was the wife of the Testator. As the Will has been executed to disentitle her from the right of maintenance out of the property of the Testator, it was not a genuine one and the suit should be dismissed. 3. On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge formulated five issues. Those are: 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Has the Will been executed by the Testator in sound disposing state of mind? 3. Is the Will properly attested? 4. Is the Will valid, genuine and free from suspicion? 5. To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled? 4. In support of their respective pleas, the parties adduced oral evidence. Those are: 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Has the Will been executed by the Testator in sound disposing state of mind? 3. Is the Will properly attested? 4. Is the Will valid, genuine and free from suspicion? 5. To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled? 4. In support of their respective pleas, the parties adduced oral evidence. The Plaintiff examined himself as P. W.3 and one attesting witness and scribe of the Will while the Defendant No. 1 herself as O.P.W.1, and she did not examine any other witness or file any documentary evidence in support of her pleas. However, the Plaintiff filed the death certificate of Naran Behera. The learned Subordinate Judge after analyzing the evidence on record came to the findings that Naran Behera was in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution; that the Will was duly attested by two attesting witnesses and the same was not suspicious in character and was genuine and valid and free from suspicion; that the suit was maintainable. On the above findings, the Court below decreed the Plaintiff's suit. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the execution and attestation of the Will have not been done properly and the Will in favour of the Respondent was executed in suspicious circumstances which have not been explained by the Respondent and the Will defeats the right of the maintenance of the appeal. Therefore, this Court should interfere with the finding of the trial Court and set aside the same. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Will was properly and duly attested and the trial Court has properly analysed the evidence adduced by the parties and passed the Judgment which is just and proper. Therefore, the said Judgment and decree may not be interfered with by this Court. 7. The appeal was heard in part on 9.4.2008. Thereafter it was adjourned. Learned Counsel for the Appellant filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC for production of additional evidence. In the said application it has been stated that he wants to file the Judgment and decree in T.S. No. 76 of 1996 dated 30.6.1967 and 3.7.1987 respectively. The said Judgment and decree is relating to maintenance of the Appellant passed against Naran Behera on contest. In the said application it has been stated that he wants to file the Judgment and decree in T.S. No. 76 of 1996 dated 30.6.1967 and 3.7.1987 respectively. The said Judgment and decree is relating to maintenance of the Appellant passed against Naran Behera on contest. The Appellant has stated that the said Judgment and decree was kept in the box of the Petitioner and she could not be able to file the same during the trial of the probate proceeding in the Court below, and the said document was necessary for just decision. Therefore, the same may be considered as additional evidence on behalf of the Appellant and may also be considered at the time of hearing. 8. So far as Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC is concerned, the Court while accepting a document on evidence as additional evidence, is to specify three conditions, i.e., (1) The Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or. (2) The party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (3) The appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce Judgment, or for any other substantial cause, The appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. Whether the additional evidence is allowed to be produced, by an appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 9. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that the said document was passed in the year 1967. Earlier in the year 1967, the parties have contested the case. The present suit was filed in the year 1988 and nearly for about two years parties have contested the suit. Though the present Appellant and opposite party has stated in her objection that the Will was executed to disentitle her from the right of maintenance out of the property of the Testator, she has not stated anything regarding the Judgment and decree passed in her favour nor has she stated anything about the same while examining herself as D.W.1. Though the present Appellant and opposite party has stated in her objection that the Will was executed to disentitle her from the right of maintenance out of the property of the Testator, she has not stated anything regarding the Judgment and decree passed in her favour nor has she stated anything about the same while examining herself as D.W.1. The said Judgment and decree also reveals that the Will was not executed yet and if at all she has the right to receive maintenance out of the estate or any part thereof. She can enforce such right against the transfer if the transfer notice of right or if the transferee is gracious but not against the transferee for consideration or without notice of right. Since the explanation given by her is that the Judgment and decree was kept in a box and she could not file the same during the trial, this Court is not satisfied with the same, as the said document is being filed after so many years at this belated stage. Hence, the said petition (M.C. No. 195 of 2008) is dismissed and the aforesaid document is not taken into consideration to decide the present dispute. 10. In the present appeal, this Court is to decide whether the Will was a valid one and the legatee was heard in accordance with law. It appears from the evidence adduced by the parties that the legatee examined one attesting witness and filed the Will on the basis of which he prayed for probate of the said Will and grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of late Naran Behera. It appears that the attesting witness, Bansidhar Swain was examined as P.W.2, who is also the scribe of the document. There is no bar that the scribe cannot be the attesting witness and in this case, the said witness, while being examined as a witness in the suit, has specifically stated that Naran Behera after understanding the content of the Will put his signature thereon in his presence and he and another attesting witness put their signatures on the Will in the presence of Naran Behera. 11. 11. As per the meaning of attestation, the essential conditions of attestation are that (a) two or more witnesses each of whom have seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or have 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 signatures or mark or of the signature of such other person, and (b) each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant with a view to attest or to bear witness to said fact but it shall not be necessary that one such witness shall have been present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. Reference made to decision in the case of M. L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib Vs. M. V. Venkata Sastri and Sons and Others, . 12. In view of the above, since the legatee has examined one of the attesting witnesses who has specifically deposed that the deed was properly executed by the testator and he has proved the attestation, i.e., the act of witnessing the signature of an instrument and subscribing the name of the witness in the testimony of fact. Attestation means that what is said to be attested happened in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the said witness has witnessed the actual execution of the document and he has signed the document in the presence of the executants after seeing the execution of the document. The trial Court has rightly allowed the Plaintiff prayer and this Court confirms the findings of the Court below. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed