JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal, at the instance of original plaintiffs, is directed against judgment and order dated 23.1.1998 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1994 by learned Additional District Judge, Yavatmal allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court. 2. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is, whether in the facts and circumstances, the lower appellate court was justified in rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim based on the Will on the ground that the Will suffered from suspicious circumstances and that it was not proved to be validly executed Will. The answer must be in the negative for reasons to follow. 3. At the outset, it must be stated that it is settled legal position that attestation of the will is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signature of the executant/testator. The attesting witness should put his signature on the will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. Since a will is required by law to be attested, its execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. Before we discuss the controversy, facts briefly stated are : The plaintiffs had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 114 of 1991 on 8.10.1991 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Yavatmal for relief of possession of the suit house on the basis of title. The subject-matter of the dispute is a residential house situated at village Chani, Tahsil Darwha, District Yavatmal. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their grand-father Sitaram and defendants no. 1 to 4 (his sons) had partitioned joint Hindu family properties between themselves by a registered Partition Deed dated 27.6.1970. Suit house was given in the share of Sitaram. Sitaram resided in the suit house along with his wife Aloki. Sitaram possessed it till his death on 17.10.1979 and thereafter Alokibai had continued to occupy it till her death on 25.5.1990. The plaintiffs succeeded to the said suit house as it was bequeathed in their favour under Will dated 4.6.1976 executed by Sitaram during his life-time and after it came to his share. However, defendant no. Sitaram possessed it till his death on 17.10.1979 and thereafter Alokibai had continued to occupy it till her death on 25.5.1990. The plaintiffs succeeded to the said suit house as it was bequeathed in their favour under Will dated 4.6.1976 executed by Sitaram during his life-time and after it came to his share. However, defendant no. 4 took possession of the suit house illegally without any lawful right and refused to hand over and deliver possession to the plaintiffs despite notice to defendant no. 4 dated 13.3.1991 calling upon him to hand over possession of the suit house. The suit was, therefore, filed for possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit house. 5. Defendants no. 1 and 3 supported case of the plaintiffs on the ground of Will dated 4.6.1976. 6. Defendant no. 4 Ambadas resisted the suit and disputed the Will claiming that the suit house was allotted to his share in the partition and challenging the suit as time-barred. Defendant no. 4 also contended that the suit house did not belong to Sitaram and therefore Will deed had no legal force. 7. The trial Court, upon evidence led, decreed the suit and ordered the contesting defendant no. 4 to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. 8. The 1st Appellate Court, learned Additional District Judge, hearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1994 by judgment and order dated 23.1.1998 was pleased to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. The appeal was admitted on 26.7.1999 on the substantial question of law reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 10. Now, let us turn to the controversy agitated in the suit. The Will deed in dispute is at exhibit 42 which appears a registered document dated 4.6.1976 which mentioned that residential house at village Chani was bequeathed in favour of plaintiffs Purushottam and Gopal to be shared equally by them. Attesting witnesses were Kisan Deorao Shinde and Shriram Domaji Pajgade and one more witness present was Parashram Dadarao Misal. Plaintiff Gopal deposed in support of the suit claim and examined petition writer Rajaram Mamusa Mithe who had scribed the Will in his own hand-writing. Attesting witness Shriram Damoji Pachgade was also examined (witness no.5) by the plaintiffs to prove that Sitaram had made Will in his presence in the year 1976 while he was quite normal physically and mentally. Plaintiff Gopal deposed in support of the suit claim and examined petition writer Rajaram Mamusa Mithe who had scribed the Will in his own hand-writing. Attesting witness Shriram Damoji Pachgade was also examined (witness no.5) by the plaintiffs to prove that Sitaram had made Will in his presence in the year 1976 while he was quite normal physically and mentally. Sitaram gave instructions to scribe Mithe to write the contents as told and Shriram had signed in his presence after the contents were read over and admitted by him as true and correct. As part of execution, thumb impression of Sitaram was obtained by the Sub-Registrar. However, in the course of cross-examination attesting witness gave following admissions : “When I went the Will was already written. The signature of Sitaram was already made before my arrival. Mithe told me to sign the document and therefore I made the signature. I had not gone for the purpose of identification in the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is true that Will was not written before me.” After this vital turn around by the witness in the course of cross-examination, he was recalled and disowned on behalf of the plaintiffs and cross-examined with permission of the court and the witness reiterated the fact stated in his cross-examination earlier to the effect that the document was already written, but stated that the contents were read over loudly to him and Sitaram admitted the contents and thereafter Sitaram made the signature and then the witness put his signature in exhibit 42 identifying the signatures. His evidence, therefore, cannot be brushed aside completely but needed to be appreciated in juxta position to other evidence on record. 11. The plaintiffs had examined clerk from Sub- Registrar’s Office about the practice of thumb impression taken of the executant for the identification purpose and deposed that the document is registered after the contents of the documents are verified with the executant. 12. As against evidence of seven witnesses examined for the plaintiffs, the defendant no. 4 entered alone in the witness box to contradict the suit claim. The strict meaning of the term onus probandi is that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. Defendant no.4 in this case led no other evidence except his own self-serving statement. 13. 4 entered alone in the witness box to contradict the suit claim. The strict meaning of the term onus probandi is that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. Defendant no.4 in this case led no other evidence except his own self-serving statement. 13. It is submitted in support of the appeal that the trial Judge had occasion to see witnesses and observe their demeanours while they deposed before it. On appreciation of evidence, it is found by the trial court that the Will deed was executed by Sitaram voluntarily on 4.6.1976 in respect of the suit house. 14. Requirement of proof of Will in view of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act is that at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution of the Will. If evidence is available of at least one attesting witness who deposed about having seen the testator putting his signature under the Will in presence of attesting witness the Will, it must be concluded that it is duly proved. To find this rule of evidence, one may refer to Yumnam Ongbi Tampha v. Yumnam Joykumar and ors reported in (2009) 4 SCC 780 . 15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no sufficient ground or justification for the lower Appellate Court to uproot the findings of facts recorded by the learned trial Judge who had first hand benefit to view the witnesses in the witness box; observe their demenours in the witness box and to appreciate the evidence on merits. The plaintiffs had led sufficient evidence on record to substantiate their case based upon the Will deed executed by Sitaram which was accepted as proved upon preponderance of probability. The burden did shift upon defendant no. 4 to disprove the plaintiffs’ case which the defendant no. 4 failed to discharge. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the validity of the Will is established and it cannot be said that it was shrouded with any suspicion grave enough to invalidate it. The evidence led by the plaintiffs had clinched issue in their favour in the absence contradictory evidence on behalf of defendant no. 4. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed. The evidence led by the plaintiffs had clinched issue in their favour in the absence contradictory evidence on behalf of defendant no. 4. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1994 passed on 23.1.1998 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 114 of 1991 on 22.4.1994 is affirmed and restored. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.