JUDGMENT : 1. Having heard the rival contentions, I find that there are concurrent judgments where-against the present second appeal has been preferred. 2. The theme behind the controversy revolves between the real sister Smt. Rajbala (now being supported by two brothers Nanak Singh and Shyam Singh) and her another real brother Hukum Singh, appellant herein, who are contesting the matter on the issue of distribution of property after the death of their father Mr. Rai Singh way back in 1984. It needs to be mentioned that before his death, Mr. Rai Singh executed a registered Will on 4.11.1981 whereby he bequeathed 1/4th of his property to Smt. Rajbala (defendant) whereas 3/4th share was handed down in favour of Smt. Shyama Devi (wife). Later on, Smt. Shyama Devi also died. So, this 3/4th share of the property devolved upon all the three sons and one daughter but Mr. Hukam Singh (appellant) began to raise a dispute on the genuineness of the Will itself claiming 1/3rd share in the whole property; thus, he seeks to exclude his sister Smt. Rajbala from her share in the questioned property. 3. I have looked into both the judgments wherein the contents of Will itself have been highlighted. Such testament speaks about the reasons for exclusion of all the three brothers from the property and passing of the same in the name of daughter Smt. Rajbala (who was unmarried at that time) and wife Smt. Shyama Devi. 4. It has been written by the Executor of the Will that he and his wife are being looked after by their daughter Ms. Rajbala only whereas all the three sons, after getting married, are completely careless towards them. Therefore, he expressed his intention to exclude all the three sons from passing on of such property. 5. That apart, so far as the Will is concerned, I find that both the attesting witnesses had died when the need was felt to prove the same. So, Smt. Rajbala (defendant) got that testament proved by producing DW2 Bijendra Singh, son of Mr. Rajendra Singh, one of the attesting witnesses and at the same time, brother of Mr. Ranbir Singh, another attesting witness. DW2 has also proved his presence at the time of execution of that Will. So, Smt. Rajbala (defendant) got that testament proved by producing DW2 Bijendra Singh, son of Mr. Rajendra Singh, one of the attesting witnesses and at the same time, brother of Mr. Ranbir Singh, another attesting witness. DW2 has also proved his presence at the time of execution of that Will. Thus, I feel that the requirement of Section 69 of the Evidence Act has, at best, been supplied in the circumstances which were prevailing at the relevant point of time. 6. In addition to the above, the Court also does not find any substance in the questions of law which have been formulated while presenting this appeal. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, this second appeal has no force and it is thus, dismissed in limine.