JUDGMENT : Annie John, J. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.260 of 2009 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad. The suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The parties herein are the legal representatives of late Raman, who died on 08.12.2008. The appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Raman and the first respondent is his wife, who is the mother of the other parties herein. 2. The suit has been filed by the appellant for partition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: According to the appellant, the plaint schedule properties viz. item Nos. 1 to 6 were originally belonged to late Raman and his sons viz. the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein. In the year 1995, on the strength of Ext.A1, a release deed was executed by the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, in favour of their father, late Raman. Item No.8 in the plaint schedule property was obtained by late Raman through Ext.A2 deed, in the year 1970. Item No.7 in the plaint schedule property was also held by late Raman. After the demise of Raman, the parties herein are entitled to share the same. In spite of repeated demands, respondents 2 and 3 were not willing to effect partition of the plaint schedule properties. 3. Per contra, the respondents contended that item Nos.1 to 7 in the plaint schedule properties were bequeathed to respondents 2 and 3, as per Ext.B1 will executed by the father, late Raman. It was also contended that the plaintiff/appellant had not acquired any right over the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit. It was also contended that item No.8 of the plaint schedule properties is not in existence. Relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, Exts.A1 and A2 and B1 to B10, the lower court dismissed the suit finding that respondents 2 and 3 had obtained title to the properties on the strength of a Will alleged to have executed by their father, late Raman. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower court, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court alleging that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower court, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court alleging that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below ought not to have relied upon Ext.B1 Will, which was not properly executed and it was executed without free will and consent of the executor therein. Further late Raman was aged and was under the custody and control of respondents 2 and 3 on his last stages. The lower court also found that as per Ext.A1 deed, the entire right over the properties was released by the appellant as well as respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the deceased Raman. Not even a single cents of property was left to the appellant as evident from Ext.B1 Will. Ext.B1 will was not proved beyond doubt as the father late Raman was not in a situation to execute the will. The witness to the Will was interested in the affairs of the parties and his evidence could not have relied on by the lower court. Further, item No.8 in the plaint schedule properties is not covered by Ext.B1 Will and the said property was obtained by the father through Ext.A2 and that the court below failed to consider this fact and not mentioned anything about item No.8. He has further argued that the court below ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for and the plaint schedule property shall be partitioned by means of separate shares. 5. After evaluating the entire evidence, the lower court has dismissed the suit. Now the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant so as to set aside the judgment of the lower court and decreed the suit as prayed for. On the side of the appellant, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of respondents, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked. 6. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the plaint schedule property is partible among the appellant and the respondents. The appellant instituted the aforementioned suit on the premise that the property belonged to the father of the appellant, respondents 2 and 3 and the first respondent. The appellant is the eldest son of the deceased Raman and respondents 2 and 3 are youngest sons of the said Raman. The appellant instituted the aforementioned suit on the premise that the property belonged to the father of the appellant, respondents 2 and 3 and the first respondent. The appellant is the eldest son of the deceased Raman and respondents 2 and 3 are youngest sons of the said Raman. The first respondent is the mother of the appellant and she is alive. There is no serious dispute with regard to the ownership of the plaint schedule property that it belongs to the late Raman. 7. In the written statement, the respondents raised a contention that this property is not partible among the appellant and the respondents because the deceased RW1 had already executed Ext.B1 Will in favour of respondents 2 and 3. Hence, they have acquired title by way of Ext.B1 Will. So the appellant has no right at all to ask for partition of the plaint schedule property. The first respondent mother has not raised any objection regarding the contentions raised by respondents 2 and 3. 8. In the written statement, respondents have not raised any dispute with regard to the plaint schedule property and they have admitted that the plaint schedule property belongs to late Raman and the mother of the respondents 2 and 3. Naturally in the event of death of said Raman, the right of the properties would devolve upon his legal heirs, who are the appellant and respondents herein. Naturally, the appellant would get equal share over the properties. But, according to the respondents, during the life time of the deceased Raman, he has executed a registered Will in the name of the respondents 2 and 3 and by virtue of the Will, the entire properties were devolved upon the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 9. Both sides had given evidence before the court below and 2nd respondent was examined as DW1 in order to establish that Ext.B1 Will was duly executed by the deceased Raman. 10. On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the respondent DW1, the second defendant, was examined as to give evidence to establish the execution of Ext.B1 will. According to him, in the year 1995, the appellant has got himself separated from the entire family and he started living separately with his family. 10. On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the respondent DW1, the second defendant, was examined as to give evidence to establish the execution of Ext.B1 will. According to him, in the year 1995, the appellant has got himself separated from the entire family and he started living separately with his family. Apart from that, according to DW1, since then the appellant was in loggerhead with his father and he used to harass his parents in many ways and the nature of the appellant has forced the deceased Raman to execute the Will in the year 2017 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 by virtue of which the entire plaint schedule properties were bequeathed in their favour. The counsel for the appellant argued that the proof of a document purporting to be a Will had to satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the learned counsel, the requirement stated above had not been satisfied in the instant case. It was argued that the mere fact that Will was registered did not mean that proof regarding its execution in accordance with the provisions of law could be dispensed with. 11. In order to prove the genuineness of the Will, one of the attesting witnesses to Ext.B1 Will was examined as DW2. According to him, he was a close associates of late Raman, apart from being a neighbour and relative and due to that close relationship, late Raman wanted him to be a witness in the Will he was going to execute. He has further deposed that as requested by late Raman, he went to the office of the document writer at Kuzhalmannam along with another person named Asokan. Again, he had deposed to the effect that the document writer read over the Will to both of them and after hearing the same, the deceased Raman had subscribed his signature in the Will. DW2 and the other witness have also subscribed their signatures in the Will as attestors in the presence of the deceased Raman. Thereafter, they have proceeded to the Registrar's office and registered the Will. The evidence of DW2 is very material fact to be considered to prove the execution of the Will. DW2 and the other witness have also subscribed their signatures in the Will as attestors in the presence of the deceased Raman. Thereafter, they have proceeded to the Registrar's office and registered the Will. The evidence of DW2 is very material fact to be considered to prove the execution of the Will. DW2 had assertively stated that he had seen the executor, the deceased Raman subscribing his signature in Ext.B1 Will and after ascertaining the fact, he has also subscribed his signature. This fact has not been disproved even after the lengthy examination of DW2. Even DW2 had stated that the testator had mental and physical capacity to understand the facts as narrated in Ext.B1 Will. 12. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act' for short) reads as follows:- "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 rules:- (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. (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 acknowledgement 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. 13. 13. The aforesaid provisions of the Act envisages three situations: First, the Will has to be attested by two or more witnesses; second, each of them had seen the testator to either affix his signatures or thumb impressions or mark or has seen the 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 the third situation, each of the witnesses signed in the presence of the testator. The non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions, however, disprove the execution of the Will. 14. In Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 409, it is held that provisions under Section 63(c) of the Act are mandatory to prove the execution of a Will. It is also held in Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal, (2010) 12 SCALE 470 that a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the Testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will or has seen some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from the Testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark or his signature or the signature of such other person and that each of the witnesses has signed the Will in the presence of the Testator. 15. To say a Will has been duly executed, the requirement mentioned in clause (a) to (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are to be complied with. The statutory requirements to prove a Will in terms of the aforementioned provisions have been laid down in a large number of decisions. 16. It is held in Babu Singh v. Ram Sahai, (2008) 14 SCC 754 , that to prove due execution of a Will, at least one attesting witness required to be examined, though this does not rule out examining more than one attesting witness. The attestation of execution of a Will must be in conformity with Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The requirements of Section 63(1)(c) of Succession Act, 1925 must also be complied with. When genuineness of the Will is questioned, it is the duty of propounder to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. The attestation of execution of a Will must be in conformity with Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The requirements of Section 63(1)(c) of Succession Act, 1925 must also be complied with. When genuineness of the Will is questioned, it is the duty of propounder to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. The Will created bequeathing right, title and interest in the property in favour of respondent. One of the two attesting witnesses already died and the other one did not appear for being examined to prove attestation. In that case, the trial court held that the execution of the Will was not proved. The Will is to be attested by two witnesses in terms of Section 63(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Indisputably, the requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence Act is required to be complied with for proving a Will. Section 63(1)(c) of the Succession Act mandates attestation by two witnesses. Thus, not only the execution of the Will be proved, but actual execution of the Will must also be attested by at least two witnesses. "Attestation" and "execution" connote two different meanings. Some documents are required by law to be attested. 17. In terms of Section 68 of the Act, although it is not necessary to call more than one attesting witness to prove due execution of a Will, that would not mean that an attesting document shall be proved by the evidence of one attesting witness only and two or more attesting witnesses need not be examined at all. Section 68 of the Act lays down the mode of proof. It envisages the necessity of more evidence than mere attestation, as the words 'at least' have been used therein. When genuineness of a Will is in question, apart from execution and attestation of Will, it is also the duty of a person seeking declaration about the validity of the Will to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances existing, if any. Thus, in addition to prove the execution of the Will by examining the attesting witnesses, the propounder is also required to lead evidence to explain the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. Proof of execution of the Will would, inter alia, depend thereupon. 18. Thus, in addition to prove the execution of the Will by examining the attesting witnesses, the propounder is also required to lead evidence to explain the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. Proof of execution of the Will would, inter alia, depend thereupon. 18. Section 69 of the Act would apply, inter alia, in a case where the attesting witness is either dead or out of the jurisdiction of the court or kept out the way by the adverse party or cannot be traced despite diligent search. Only in that event, the Will may be proved in the manner indicated in Section 69 i.e., by examining witnesses who were able to prove the handwriting of the testator or executant. The burden of proof then may be shifted to others. 19. When a Will is produced, it must be proved keeping in view the provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. In the event the ingredients thereof are brought on record, strict proof of execution and attestation stands relaxed. However, signature and handwriting, as contemplated in Section 69 must be proved. 20. In Amal Sankar Sen v. The Dacca Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. by Inspector Liquidator, Cooperative Society, Dacca, AIR 1945 Cal. 350 it is held that in order that Section 69 may be applied, mere taking out of the summons or the service of summons upon an attesting witness or the mere taking out of warrant against him is not sufficient. It is only when the witness does not appear even after all the processes under Order 16, Rule 10, which the court considered to be fit and proper, had been exhausted that the foundation will be laid for the application of Section 69. 21. Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, (2006) 13 SCC 433, it is held that a Will is to be proved by what is loosely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. In terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witness. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable. In terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witness. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable. The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free Will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. 22. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , it is held that in the matter of proof of documents as in the case of the proof of Wills, it is idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied always is the test of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. Applying that test to the case at hand, we have no manner of doubt that the Will executed by the deceased Raman is a duly registered document is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances of any kind and is proved to have been duly and properly executed. 23. In Jamki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91 , it is held that a Scribe of the Will cannot be treated as an attesting witness. On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a person propounding the Will has got to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed. On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a person propounding the Will has got to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed. That cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the Will was that of the testator but must also prove that the attestations were also made properly as required by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is true that Section 68 of the Evidence Act not say that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. But at least one attesting witness has to be called for proving due execution of the Will as envisaged in Section 63. 24. In Rur Singh (Dead) Through LRS and others Vs. Bachan Kaur, (2009) 11 SCC 1 , it is held that if one attesting witness can prove execution of the Will in terms of clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act viz. attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with. One attesting witnesses examined in his evidence has to satisfy attestation of a Will by him and other witness in order to prove, there was due execution of the Will. 25. The execution of the Will is to be proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Section 68 of the Evidence Act reads as under:- "68. 25. The execution of the Will is to be proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Section 68 of the Evidence Act reads as under:- "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.- If a document is required by law to be attested, it 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: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied." It is evident that in cases where the document sought to be proved is required by law to be attested, the same cannot let be in evidence unless at least one of the attesting witnesses has been called for the purpose of proving the attestation, if any such attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and is subject to the process of the Court. 26. But, in this case, the attested witnesses were categorically admitted their signatures and also the signature of the deceased Raman. So, the evidence adduced by DW1 as well as DW2 are sufficient enough to establish that Ext.B1 Will was duly executed by the deceased Raman at his life time. 27. Per contra, the appellant had contented that Ext.B1 Will was not properly executed by the deceased Raman. In order to establish this fact, he himself was examined as PW1. In this connection, I have gone through the averments in the plaint. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint was that after the death of the deceased Raman the entire property was inherited to the legal heirs of the deceased Raman. According to him, the appellant is also entitled for a share on the plaint schedule property. Nowhere it was stated that the deceased Raman was alleged to have executed Ext.B1 Will in his life time. According to him, the appellant is also entitled for a share on the plaint schedule property. Nowhere it was stated that the deceased Raman was alleged to have executed Ext.B1 Will in his life time. There is absolutely no pleadings in the plaint even as to the existence of the execution of Will and the suit was filed due to the ignorance of the existence of the execution of the Will. There is absolutely no pleadings regarding the alleged execution of the Will or that the said Will was executed under suspicious circumstances or due to coercion or fraud on the side of respondents 2 and 3. It is also turned out that after the filing of the written statement by the respondents, and after the production of Ext.B1 Will before the Court, the appellant has not cared to file any replication or rejoinder raising any dispute regarding the execution of Ext.B1 Will or that no contention was raised that the deceased Raman was mentally and physically unfit to execute Ext.B1 Will. No attempt was made by the appellant to amend the plaint by incorporating the contention raised in the written statement that Ext.B1 Will produced was not duly executed or that it was executed under suspicious circumstances. Only during the evidence, PW1 has stated in the second paragraph of the Chief Affidavit that the deceased Raman was under the custody of respondents 2 and 3 and he was unable to take an independent decision in the matter. It is also stated in the said Chief Affidavit that the alleged Ext.B1 Will was not executed according to the will of the deceased Raman and was not duly executed by him. 28. During cross examination, he has stated that he was residing alongwith his father till 1995 and thereafter, he started residing separately. His father was under the custody of respondents 2 and 3. It was also admitted by PW1 that the housewarming and his daughter's marriage was not attended by his father and brothers. It was also admitted by PW1 that in the year 1999, himself and respondents 2 and 3 had executed a release deed in the name of their father. His father was under the custody of respondents 2 and 3. It was also admitted by PW1 that the housewarming and his daughter's marriage was not attended by his father and brothers. It was also admitted by PW1 that in the year 1999, himself and respondents 2 and 3 had executed a release deed in the name of their father. It was also admitted by him that on the same day itself, his mother, the first respondent had executed a release deed in favour of the appellant and transferred the right over some of the properties and his mother had executed a Will on the same day. It was also admitted that he has filed the suit, O.S. No. 365 of 2009, against the first respondent for getting the share value of the property which was sold by his mother. 29. Again in cross examination, he answered to a question put by the respondents that his father was capable of taking his own decisions. He has also answered that he might have executed the alleged Will due to the pressure on the side of respondents 2 and 3. He has further deposed that his father had no such ailment during his life time. From the evidence of PW1, it is also turned out that he has no specific case regarding the non-execution of Ext.B1 Will. Further he has not stated any pleadings in the plaint denying the execution of Ext.B1 Will. So the evidence adduced without the pleadings cannot be accepted. Even though the appellant has attempted to establish that Ext.B1 Will was not duly executed, he could not able to prove the same by adducing the oral or documentary evidence. As we have already observed, during cross examination, PW1 has stated that his father was able to look after his own affairs. However, it is also come out in evidence that the appellant had loggerhead with the deceased Raman and from 1995 onwards, he had no acquaintance with his family, including his father, mother and brothers and that might indicate that the case advanced by the respondents probabilise that the deceased Raman had executed Ext.B1 Will excluding the appellant. 30. So, the evidence adduced by the appellant would clearly establish that he had no acquaintance with his father till his death and respondents 2 and 3 were looking after their father and mother. 30. So, the evidence adduced by the appellant would clearly establish that he had no acquaintance with his father till his death and respondents 2 and 3 were looking after their father and mother. Respondents 2 and 3 have established by examination of PWs 1 and 2 that Ext.B1 Will was duly executed by complying with the provisions contained in Section 63 of Act. The appellant has also tried to attack the veracity of DW2 stating that he was making trouble in his family and he is the person who caused misunderstanding between the appellant and other family members. Even then he could not succeed in proving that DW2 was in enmity with the appellant. He has also admitted that in the year 1995, he executed a release deed in favour of his father and brothers and DW2 was the attestor in that document also. In the year 1995 itself, as admitted by the appellant, his mother has executed a Registered Will in which DW2 was one of the attesting witness. If DW2 was in loggerhead or enmity with the appellant, he would not have permitted him to attest the document executed by him. Nothing has brought out during cross examination of DW2 to prove that his evidence is not credible to be accepted. The evidence adduced by PW1, the appellant, itself was sufficient enough to establish that the deceased Raman was capable of taking care of his own affairs and he was mentally and physically fit at the time of execution of Ext.B1 Will. Moreover, the appellant had also admitted during cross examination that his relationship with his sister, the fourth respondent, was good and smooth and he has not informed him ever that his father was facing any difficulties in living together with respondents 2 and 3. 31. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that Ext.B1 Will was duly executed by the deceased Raman in favour of respondents 2 and 3 as held by the court below. No doubt, the respondents succeeded in proving the Will by examining the witnesses. There has been compliance of provisions of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings under challenge which was passed based on the partition of plaint schedule item Nos. No doubt, the respondents succeeded in proving the Will by examining the witnesses. There has been compliance of provisions of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings under challenge which was passed based on the partition of plaint schedule item Nos. 1 to 7 and on the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. The trial court has held that the Will had been signed by the testator in the presence of the attesting witnesses. The first and foremost requirement prescribed under Section 63 of the Act is, therefore, clearly satisfied. 32. The next question to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to get the share of the plaint schedule item No.8. The lower court has not considered this fact at the time of conclusion of the judgment. The respondents have contended in the written statement that there was no such property in existence in the name of the deceased Raman. So the partibility of the plaint schedule item No.8 is disputed. On the other hand, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that he could able to establish that the plaint schedule item No. 8 is in existence and he is entitled to get the share from out of that property. Even though the appellant has tried to establish before us that the plaint schedule item No.8 is in existence, he could not produce any document to prove the same. In the cross examination, he has stated that the father had purchased plaint schedule item No.8 through a sale deed and that the said plaint schedule item No. 8 had proper boundary also. According to him, Ext.A2 is the sale deed relating to the plaint schedule item No.8 and a part of the same was given to the Panchayath. So the eastern part of the plaint schedule item No. 8 is a road and therefore, according to the appellant, the plaint schedule item No.8 is in existence. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and appraising the judgment and decree of the court below, we are of the view that there is force and merit in the submissions of the appellant's counsel. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and appraising the judgment and decree of the court below, we are of the view that there is force and merit in the submissions of the appellant's counsel. The respondents' counsel has submitted that they have no objection in giving the share of the plaint schedule item No.8, if the appellant succeeds in establishing the existence of the plaint schedule item No. 8. 33. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaint schedule item No.8 is in existence and in view of the fact that the lower court has not considered this fact, we are of the considered opinion that the question of partition of the plaint schedule item No. 8 is to be considered afresh. In the result, apart from the question of determining the existence of the plaint schedule item No.8 and its partibility, all other findings entered by the court below are hereby confirmed and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh adjudication with liberty to both the parties to adduce further evidence considering the existence of the plaint schedule item No.8 and its partibility alone. Considering the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2009, the court below is directed to dispose of the case within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This RFA is disposed of as above.