JUDGMENT A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant herein has challenged the judgment and decree obtained by respondents 1 to 3 in the suit instituted seeking the relief of declaration and injunction, confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No. 135/2005. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The appellant herein is the first defendant, whereas, respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and 4th respondent is the second defendant and father of respondents 1 to 3. One Venkatappa, father of the defendants was the manager of the joint family and in a partition between himself and his two sons defendants 1 and 2, the property bearing Sy. No. 38/1 'measuring 22 guntas and Sy. No. 438/1 measuring 14 guntas described in the schedule to the plaint fell to the share of Venkatappa. The remaining properties of joint family were allotted to defendants 1 and 2. PW1 Jayalakshmamma is the mother of the plaintiffs and wife of the second defendant. The second defendant is said to have kept a mistress by name Jayamma and is residing separately. Venkatappa the father of defendants 1 and 2 bequeathed the land measuring 22 guntas in Sy. No. 38/1 and Sy. No. 438/1 measuring 14 guntas under a registered Will Ex. P1 dated 24.10.1991. That apart the said Venkatappa and defendant No. 2 sold 11 guntas of land in Sy. No. 38/1 in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed. Venkatappa died in the year 1998 and in pursuance of the Will executed by him, the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit, properties including 11 guntas in Sy. No. 38/1 sold by defendant No. 2 and his father Venkatappa. The plaintiffs claimed that they are absolute owners in possession of the suit properties in pursuance of the Will and also the sale deed. There was an obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendants and therefore the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. 2. The second defendant was placed ex-parte and the first defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement. He denied the averments of partition and the share of his father Venkatappa. 2. The second defendant was placed ex-parte and the first defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement. He denied the averments of partition and the share of his father Venkatappa. He also denied the execution of the Will bequeathing the share of Venkatappa in favour of the plaintiffs and contended that he is in possession of 35 guntas of land in Sy. No. 38/1. It is also his contention that a suit in O.S. No. 124/99 was instituted against the second defendant and there is a compromise decree under which the first defendant claims to be in possession of the suit property as well. It was also his contention that the Will is a fictitious and concocted document created by the plaintiff and that his father has not executed any Will in favour of the plaintiffs. On these grounds he has sought for dismissal of the suit. 3. The trial Court framed the issues and in the trial PW1 the mother of the plaintiffs was examined. She also examined PW2 and PW3 and in their evidence the documents Exs. P1 to P"9 were marked. The first defendant was examined as DW1 and the documents Exs. D1 to D3 were marked. The trial Court after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the material on record, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring their title to the suit properties and also granted injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant No. 1 preferred RA No. 135/2005 which came to be dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal is filed. 4. I have heard Sri. Siddamallappa, the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Will Ex. P1 is not proved and there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and he would contend that PW2 the attestor has not identified the signature of the executant and other attesting witness. Hence he would submit that in the absence of such evidence, grant of title to the plaintiffs on the basis of the said Will is improper and this is a substantial question of law for consideration. Hence he would submit that in the absence of such evidence, grant of title to the plaintiffs on the basis of the said Will is improper and this is a substantial question of law for consideration. It is'-also his submission that PW2 Sowbhagyamma, the mother of PW1 is a beneficiary and her presence at the time of execution of the document would indicate the dominance in getting the Will executed. Therefore, the learned counsel submits to consider raising of the aforesaid questions as the substantial questions of law. 6. Scrutiny of the material placed on record and the judgment of the Courts below would reveal that there are concurrent findings of fact. The trial Court has held that the Will is proved and it also has observed that there are no suspicious circumstances in its execution. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the findings of the trial Court. In this context if the facts are looked into, PWs. 1 and 2 state in their evidence that the first defendant had a love affair and much prior to the partition in the family he was residing separately. The evidence of DW1 reveals an admission of the fact that defendant No. 2 had kept a mistress by name Jayamma and was residing with her in the village in a separate house. It is in the context of the aforesaid facts that Venktappa the father of the defendants effected a division in the family, the properties were distributed. Venkatappa retained 22 guntas of land in Sy. No. 38/1 and 14 guntas in Sy. No. 438/1. These properties were bequeathed by him under the Will Ex. P1 which was registered after its execution. 7. As the second defendant was residing separately with his kept mistress, PW1 who is the wife of the second defendant was residing separately with her children who are the plaintiffs 1 to 3. It is also in the evidence and admitted by the first defendant that Venkatappa after partition was residing with the plaintiffs along with his wife Muniyamma. So, Venkatappa was not happy with the conduct of the defendants and it is for this reason that there was a division in the family. It was PW1 Jayalakshmamma the mother of the plaintiffs and wife of the second defendant who was looking after Venkatappa her father-in-law and Muniyamma her mother-in-law. So, Venkatappa was not happy with the conduct of the defendants and it is for this reason that there was a division in the family. It was PW1 Jayalakshmamma the mother of the plaintiffs and wife of the second defendant who was looking after Venkatappa her father-in-law and Muniyamma her mother-in-law. The plaintiffs and their mother were residing separately from the second defendant and a maintenance petition was also filed by the plaintiffs and their mother as against the second defendant. The Court had also passed a maintenance order. In view of these admitted facts which are borne out from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and DW1 it could be said that Venkatappa was not happy with the conduct of the defendants and the relations between the plaintiffs and their mother on one side and that of the defendant No. 2 were strained. Though the first defendant has taken up a contention that the plaintiffs have instituted a collusive suit against the second defendant, the material placed on record would reveal that there is no collusion between the plaintiffs and the second defendant. 8. So far as the partition is concerned, though the first defendant do not admit the said partition in his written statement in the evidence, Ex. P9 is a sale deed wherein the second defendant has sold 11 guntas of land to the plaintiffs. Venkatappa joined the second defendant in the execution of the sale deed. In the sale deed Ex. P9 there is a recital of the partition in the family and out of Sy. No. 38/1, defendants No. 1 and 2 were granted 22 guntas of land each and the remaining 22 guntas of land went to the share of Venkatappa. The first defendant has signed Ex. P9 as a consenting witness. From this material on record an inference is drawn by the Courts below to hold that there was a partition between the defendants and his father Venkatappa. 9. So far as the proof of Will is concerned, the plaintiffs have produced the said Will at Ex. P1 and PW1 Jayalakshmamma the mother of the plaintiffs came to know about this Will for the first time through Muniyamma her mother in law and wife of Venkatappa. This knowledge as deposed by PW1 is natural and this Will was in the custody of Muniyamma the wife of Venkatappa. P1 and PW1 Jayalakshmamma the mother of the plaintiffs came to know about this Will for the first time through Muniyamma her mother in law and wife of Venkatappa. This knowledge as deposed by PW1 is natural and this Will was in the custody of Muniyamma the wife of Venkatappa. To prove the execution of the Will, the plaintiffs have examined PW2 Sowbhagyamma who is none else than the younger sister of the defendants and mother of PW1. It is in her evidence that on 24.10.1991 about 12 years prior to her evidence she was called by her father Venkatappa to Hosakote. She went to Hosakote and Muniyamma her mother and her elder sister Munivenkatamma were also present at that time and a Will was read over by the persons present there. She was told that her father Venkatappa has bequeathed his share of the property to the plaintiffs and after reading over the contents Venkatappa put his thumb impression and as attesting witness her mother Muniyamma also put her thumb impression and Munivenkatamma has also signed the Will and thereafter she put her signature on the Will Ex. P1. She also states that her father told that he would get the Will registered. She returned to her village. She has identified the Will Ex. P1 as the one which was executed by her father Venkatappa and the signature of PW2 is at Ex. P1(a). At this juncture it is necessary to note that Munivenkatamma another sister of PW2 and defendants, 1 and 2 was also present at the time of execution of the Will. So also Muniyamma the mother of defendants and wife of Venkatappa, mother of PW2 and Munivenkatamma were also present at the time of execution. The attesting witnesses are PW2 Sowbhagyamma, Munivenkatamma elder sister of PW2 and Muniyamma the wife of the executor of the Will and mother of attesting witnesses. It is relevant to note that the Will was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Hosakote and there is an endorsement on the Will that it is Venkatappa who presented the Will for registration. PW2 was not present at the time of registration of the said document. 10. It is no doubt true that PW1 Jayalakshmamma is the daughter of PW2 Sowbhagyamma, but PW1 was not present at the time of execution of the Will. It is the plaintiffs who were the beneficiaries under the said Will. PW2 was not present at the time of registration of the said document. 10. It is no doubt true that PW1 Jayalakshmamma is the daughter of PW2 Sowbhagyamma, but PW1 was not present at the time of execution of the Will. It is the plaintiffs who were the beneficiaries under the said Will. So, no beneficiaries were present at the time of its execution.. Though PW2 is the grand-mother of the plaintiffs, that itself is insufficient to accept the version that she was a beneficiary under the Will. It is her grand children who got an interest in the suit properties on the basis of the Will Ex. P1. Even otherwise, PW2 is none else than the daughter of Venkatappa and younger sister of the defendants. She is related to both the parties. Her presence at the time of its execution is most natural. It is for this reason that the Courts below have held that PW2 is not a beneficiary and her presence at the time of execution of the Will, is natural and it has also held that the execution has been proved. 11. So far as identity of the thumb impression of Venkatappa, the thumb impression of Muniyamma and the signature of Munivenkatamma, though PW2 do not refer to these thumb impressions and the signature, by looking to the document it is clear from her evidence and she states definitely that after reading over the contents of the Will her father put his thumb impression, thereafter her mother Muniyamma put her thumb impression and Munivenkatamma her elder sister signed the said document. Though the thumb impressions are not attested, there is a mention at both the thumb impressions as they belong to Venkatappa and Muniyamma'. So, when PW2 states positively in her evidence that the executor of the Will and the attesting witnesses have put their thumb impression and signature in her presence, this much of material is sufficient and from this evidence the thumb impressions and the signatures could be identified. It is not necessary for PW2 to say and identify the thumb impressions and that is not the requirement of law. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 761 . It is not necessary for PW2 to say and identify the thumb impressions and that is not the requirement of law. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 761 . The Apex Court referring to the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act has held that the attestation of the Will by two or more witnesses is mandatory and in case if only one attesting witness is examined, he must prove due execution of the Will as required under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act i.e. attestation by him as well as by the other witness in the manner contemplated therein. It also held that if one witness fails to prove the same, the other witness has to be called for supplementing his evidence. 13. In the aforesaid decision only one attesting witness was present and there was no evidence of the presence of the other attesting witness. There was also no evidence of the second attesting witness having signed in the presence of the testator. So, it is for this reason the Apex Court held that the evidence of only one attesting witness is not sufficient and it held that the execution is not proved. Looking to the facts on hand, PW2 Sowbhagyamma has spoken to the presence of the executor of the Will (Venkatappa), presence of other attesting witnesses Muniyamma and Munivenkatamma. She has also stated that these two attesting witnesses have signed and put their thumb impressions in her presence. Therefore, the examination of another attesting witness was not necessary and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the decision aforesaid does not apply to the facts on hand. The Courts below after assessing the evidence of PW2 have held that there are no suspicious circumstances at all and no other suspicious circumstances are referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant. There are concurrent findings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal as stated by the learned counsel. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.