JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. Even though several contentions and issues are raised by the respective counsel appearing for the parties in this appeal, the core issue boils down to the validity of a Will claimed to have been executed by a certain Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai, who is the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 and the grandfather of defendants 6 to 9. 2. On one hand the defendants maintain that the Will executed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai is valid and that it has been properly executed, while on the other, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the Will is not proper and that it is vitiated by questionable actions at the hands of the defendants and they even go to the extent of alleging that the Will is forged or created subsequent to the death of Gopalakrishna Pillai. 3. As we indicated above, though there are other issues raised in this appeal, we notice that at this stage of the proceedings the only one that is really now live for our consideration is as to whether the Will in question is valid or otherwise. We say this because, even though contentions are seen made regarding the nature of acquisition of the properties by Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai and questions raised regarding his right and title over the same, it is now virtually admitted by all parties in this appeal that the properties involved herein are self acquired by Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai and that he is competent and eligible to execute a Will regarding the same. The sole issue, therefore, that survives for our consideration at this stage is as to whether the Will marked as Ext.B2 is valid or otherwise and whether it has been executed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai under the Mandate of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Act for brevity) 4. The most unexpendable facts, as would be necessary for the disposal of this appeal, is that the plaint schedule properties were settled by Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai as per the Will, namely Ext.B2 dated 10.01.1985, in favour of the defendants and the singular allegation of the plaintiff is that this division is grossly unequal among the beneficiaries and therefore, that the Will is suspect since such iniquitous sharing could never have been intended by their father, the testator. Gopalakrishna Pillai as per the Will, namely Ext.B2 dated 10.01.1985, in favour of the defendants and the singular allegation of the plaintiff is that this division is grossly unequal among the beneficiaries and therefore, that the Will is suspect since such iniquitous sharing could never have been intended by their father, the testator. According to them, the Will was not executed by their father Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, but that it was created by the defendants using papers that were either left signed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai when he was alive or that it was fabricated by them subsequent to the death of Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai with the help of the persons who were shown as attesting witnesses in the Will. It is the singular case of the plaintiffs in the suit that the Will in question is not genuine and they, therefore, prayed that it be set aside and to have the properties equally partitioned. 5. The defendants au contraire contested these allegations of the plaintiffs asserting that Ext.B2 Will was executed by their father, validly and properly attested by two witnesses who were examined before the court below as DWs 2 and 6. We must notice first off that DW2 is defendant No.2, one of the children of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai. The narration of facts, as given by the defendants in their written statement is that on 10.01.1985 Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai was slightly unwell and that he summoned defendant No.2 to his house. On the second defendant reaching the house of his father, it is alleged that Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai took out the Will, that was already prepared by him, and asked defendant No.2 to write certain words in attestation of the said Will. The effect of the attestation, that the second defendant says his father asked him to write, was that the “Will is attested by two witnesses in his presence and that he has seen that the witnesses signed the same.” The words used in the attestation are in first person, but it is not signed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, even though two signatures are shown under it to be that of the attesting witnesses, namely, his son, Sri. Somaraja Pillai, the second defendant therein and a certain Sri.Nataraja Pillai whose evidence has been recorded as DW6. Somaraja Pillai, the second defendant therein and a certain Sri.Nataraja Pillai whose evidence has been recorded as DW6. The plaintiffs assert that the attesting witnesses are related to each other very closely and that the attestation shown in Ext.B2 has been created after the death of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai and they thus contend that Ext.B2 is not a valid Will within the terms of the Act. 6. The court below, after an assessment of all the materials before it and after evaluation of the testimony let in evidence, dismissed the suit, finding that Ext.B2 Will is a genuine document. This judgment and decree dated 28.07.1990 was assailed before this court by the plaintiffs in A.S.No.344 of 1991. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the appeal in great detail and after an elaborate consideration, came to the conclusion that Ext.B2 Will cannot be construed to be a valid one and, therefore, that it cannot stand the test of law. On such conclusion, the learned Single Judge overruled the judgment and decree of the court below and set aside Ext.B2 Will, also finding the properties to be the exclusive properties of the testator Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai. The learned Single Judge thereafter passed a preliminary decree for partition of plaint A schedule properties and the plaintiffs were declared to be entitled to 1/7 shares each in the same. It was also ordered that the plaintiffs will be entitled to 2/7 shares in A-schedule properties and that the question of management of B-schedule school would be left open to be decided in the final decree proceedings. Since the school is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules (KER for short) the learned Single Judge also decreed that until a scheme, as is provided under Chapter V of the KER, is framed, the first defendant, namely Sri.Balakrishna Pillai will continue as the Manager of the School. It is this judgment that has been called into question by the appellants, who are the defendants in the suit, before this Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri. G. Keerthivas appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri. Dr.Sebastian Champappilli appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 8. It is this judgment that has been called into question by the appellants, who are the defendants in the suit, before this Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri. G. Keerthivas appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri. Dr.Sebastian Champappilli appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 8. Even though there is a large volume of pleadings and materials that have been placed before us in this appeal, we are of the firm view that a detailed and in depth assessment of the same would not be necessary, because the only question now relevant for our consideration at this stage of the proceedings is as to whether Ext.B2 Will is genuine or otherwise. This is because, as against the finding of the learned Single Judge in the A.S that the properties are self acquired ones of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, there is no appeal. This is this virtually conceded to by the parties. It would, therefore, not be necessary to consider the nature of the properties or the terms of acquisition of it by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, to be in a particular manner or otherwise, since these contentions are o longer res integra in this appeal. This is why we say that all that is left for our assessment herein is whether Ext.B2 Will is genuine or otherwise. 9. The law relating to Wills of a Hindu is governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 63 of the Act which is included in Chapter III therein provides as under: 63. Execution of unprivileged Wills:- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rule:- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. 10. A reading of the Section makes it indubitable that a document to be a proper Will, will have to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom should have seen the testator sign or affix his mark on it and that each of the witnesses should have then sign the Will in the presence of the testator. Of course, the provision makes it clear that it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and that no particular form of attestation is necessary. The effect of this provision is that even though there is no particular method of attestation, it is imperative that the witnesses see the testator sign the Will or affixes his mark to the Will and without this, under the rigour of Section 63, the document ceases to be a Will. 11. The facts before us indelibly tell us that the document that is sought to be proved as a Will, namely, Ext.B2, is written in all its 19 pages in the handwriting of the testator himself, Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, and that it is signed by him in all the pages, except in two, namely pages 5 and 10. There is no dispute on this. There is no dispute on this. Of course, we notice that there are certain corrections in the Will and that it has not been written continuously, since many of the pages have the colour of ink different from each other and even the handwriting varies to a marginal degree showing that it not written on the same day, but on several days. We do not require to labour much on this, because, it is admitted by DW2, the second defendant, that the Will was actually written by his father in the year 1984. According to him, as is available from his testimony, even though his father had prepared the Will earlier in the year 1984, it was signed by him only on 10.1.1985, when he started developing some physical uneasiness. According to his version, on 10.1.1985, he was summoned by his father through DW6, Sri. Nataraja Pillai and that on reaching his father's residence, Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai took out the Will that was pre-prepared by him and that he was asked to write the words of attestation as dictated by him. As we have already said above, the specific words of attestation are to the effect that the testator has seen the witnesses sign the Will in his presence. 12. According to DW2, thereafter his father signed all the pages of the Will except pages 5 and 10 which, he says, was perhaps on account of an oversight, and that the witnesses attested the Will affixing their signature with the date inscribed under it. To a pointed question in cross examination, DW2 says there is no particular reason why both the witnesses signed with the dates under it but he says that it was so done at the dictation of his father. We must say here that on an examination of the alleged Will, this testimony does not inspire confidence because the dates under the signatures of both the witnesses are written in one hand and we seriously suspect whether those two dates have been written by the second defendant, Sri.Somanathan Pillai himself. True, this is only a suspicion because this was not an issue considered by the court below or by the learned Single Judge in appeal. However, on an examination of Ext.B2, we gather this suspicion which we think is not completely out of place. True, this is only a suspicion because this was not an issue considered by the court below or by the learned Single Judge in appeal. However, on an examination of Ext.B2, we gather this suspicion which we think is not completely out of place. That being said, this is not the reason why we think that Ext.B2 cannot be accepted. There are several other reasons. For the first, there is enough evidence on record to show that Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai subscribed his signature on the various pages of Ext.B2 only after the witnesses had signed the document. The testimony of DW6 who is one of the attestors, namely, Sri.Nataraja Pillai, who is stated to be a neighbour of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, is that he was called to the house of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai and that when he went there, the Will was taken out by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai and he was asked to call his son, namely, the second defendant. On the second defendant reaching the residence of his father, DW6 continues, Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai asked him to write some words of attestation and thereafter the attestors, namely, the second defendant and DW6 signed the document. It is the specific and undoubted testimony of DW6 that Gopalakrishna Pillai thereafter signed each page of the document, except pages 5 and 10, in his presence. This is confirmed by DW3, a certain Sri.Somanathan Pillai (who is not second defendant), who is stated to be a person who was present when the Will was being attested and signed. He also confirms unequivocally that the document was first signed by the witnesses and that Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai signed only after that. The question, therefore, before us in the background of this uncontroverted version given by DWs.3 and 6 is whether Ext.B2 document can be construed as a Will at all. We are afraid, going by the rigor of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, this document, which is alleged to have been first signed by the witnesses and then by the testator, can never qualify itself to be a Will and, therefore, cannot, in our firm view be, construed as one. 13. The learned Single Judge had found several other inconsistencies in the versions of the parties and had thus concluded that the document, namely Ext.B2, had been created in suspicious circumstances. 13. The learned Single Judge had found several other inconsistencies in the versions of the parties and had thus concluded that the document, namely Ext.B2, had been created in suspicious circumstances. The learned Single Judge had found that the version given by DW2, Sri.Somanathan Pillai before the Sub Registrar when Ext.B2 was presented before him for registration under Section 41 of the Indian Registration Act, was that the alleged Will was signed by his father in the evening between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. whereas it is the common case of the defendants as well as the witnesses that the Will was signed by Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai sometime in the morning between 11 and 11.30 a.m. The learned Single Judge also found that the version of DW6 that Ext.B2 was, in fact, in the custody of DW2 was also suspect because it is the assertion of DW2 himself that the Will was always in the custody of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, who had left it in his almirah when he was taken to a hospital on 10.01.1995 on account of his illness. The suspicion of the learned Single Judge was also aggravated on account of the fact that DW6 was close to the second defendant and though the second defendant was not a direct beneficiary under Ext.B2, both his children are seen allotted properties in Ext.B2 and that the second defendant has been given the liberty of using the usufructs from such properties until his children turn 25 years in age. All these circumstances and factors created justifiable cause against the genuineness of Ext.B2 in the mind of the learned Single Judge. 14. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the Will is valid or otherwise when tested against the factors and circumstances, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, would arise only if the appellants are able to establish that the document, namely Ext.B2, can qualify itself to be a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. We are afraid that the specific assertions of the defendants and the witnesses can only contribute to a view to the contrary, as we have already found above. It is admitted by them that the Will was first signed by the witnesses and that Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai subscribed his signature to the various pages only after that. We are afraid that the specific assertions of the defendants and the witnesses can only contribute to a view to the contrary, as we have already found above. It is admitted by them that the Will was first signed by the witnesses and that Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai subscribed his signature to the various pages only after that. On this short ground alone, Ext.B2 loses credibility and status as a valid Will and, therefore, we are left with no other option but to hold that Ext.B2 is not a valid Will. That does not, however, mean that we do not subscribe to the other findings of the learned Single Judge. From a reading of the factors, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that he was justified in reaching a conclusion that Ext.B2 has been created in circumstances which cannot be found to be otherwise than suspicious and that the fact that DW2, namely the second defendant herein, had written the words of attestation in Ext.B2 but his father not having signed under it confirms the suspicion as being the truth. When admittedly Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai had signed all pages of the document, except two pages, it defies logic that he had not signed after the words of attestation. This probabalises, to a substantial extent, the version of the respondents/plaintiffs that the words of attestation and the signatures of the witnesses were written and obtained after the death of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai. 15. We also notice that the learned Single Judge had detailed with respect to Exts.B1 and B6 affidavits filed by the plaintiffs before the Educational authorities with relation to the management of the school situated in plaint B schedule property, which was relied on by the defendants to assert that the plaintiffs were aware of the Will and that they had no contest regarding the same. The learned Single Judge had considered this issue quite in detail and since he found that Ext.B2 cannot be construed to be a Will and because the execution of the said document is shrouded in circumstances of suspicion, he rightly concluded that those documents would not be of any avail in support of the contention that Ext.B2 is valid. We find this to be perfectly justified and we see no reason to deviate from these findings of the learned Single Judge in any manner whatsoever. We find this to be perfectly justified and we see no reason to deviate from these findings of the learned Single Judge in any manner whatsoever. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in this appeal and we, therefore, hold that Ext.B2 Will has not been properly proved and that no consequence flows out of it. We, therefore, confirm the preliminary decree passed by the learned Single Judge and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs and direct the parties to suffer their respective costs in this appeal.