JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No.14922-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No.14923-C of 2011 1. This is application for bringing on record legal representative of Manjit Kaur (since deceased), one of the legal heirs of Rawal Singh original plaintiff (since deceased). 2. It is alleged in the application that plaintiff had left behind Manjit Kaur (since deceased) as wife, Hardeep Singh-appellant No.1 as son and Rupinder Kaur-appellant No.2 as daughter as his only legal heirs who were impleaded in the lower appellate court. However, now Manjit Kaur has also since died leaving behind both the appellants as her only legal representatives. The application is accompanied by an affidavit. 3. Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Both the appellants are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of their mother Manjit Kaur for the purpose of this appeal. Main Case 4. This is second appeal by legal representatives of the plaintiff Rawal Singh (since deceased) having been non suited by both the courts below. 5. Case of the plaintiff is based on Will dated 26.10.1997 allegedly executed by plaintiff’s mother Malkiat Kaur @ Meeto in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff has been non suited by the courts below because the plaintiff has failed to prove the said Will. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the appellants contended that both the attesting witnesses of the Will have since died and, therefore, the Will was proved by examining son of attesting witness of the Will and the Will has, therefore, been duly proved. 8. The contention cannot be accepted. According to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Will is required to be attested by at least two witnesses. According to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, ‘the Act’) a document required by law to be attested, 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. In the instant case, both the attesting witnesses of the Will are said to have died. In the instant case, both the attesting witnesses of the Will are said to have died. Section 69 of the Act stipulates that if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the executant is in the handwriting of the executant. In the instant case, the plaintiff by examining son of attesting witness of the Will has complied with first part of mandatory provision of Section 69 of the Act as signature of one attesting witness of the Will has been proved by his son. However, second mandatory part of Section 69 of the Act that signature of the executant is also to be proved in his handwriting has not been complied with. There is no evidence whatsoever to depict that the Will has been signed by the executant i.e. Malkiat Kaur @ Meeto. Consequently, the Will has not been proved in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.