JUDGMENT : A suit for declaration of title and injunction ended in a decree in the trial court, but it was reversed in appeal and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said divergent finding rendered by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff came up with this appeal. 2. The subject matter of the suit is pertaining to Ext.A3 Will alleged to have been left out by the deceased father on 13.09.1995. The propounder plaintiff had given oral evidence as PW1 and the scribe was examined as PW2. The dispute centers around execution of Ext.A3 Will and the non-compliance of requirement under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act on the ground that there is only one attesting witness to the Will apart from the scribe. The trial court found that there is no prohibition for the scribe to act as an attesting witness and found that the scribe affixed his signature as an attesting witness to the Will - Ext.A3 and decreed the suit. But in appeal, the appellate court found that the examination of scribe will not discharge the burden lies on the propounder to prove the due execution of Ext.A3 and consequently the decree of the trial court was reversed and the suit was dismissed. 3. In Ext.A3 Will, there is only one attesting witness apart from the scribe. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on a Division Bench decision of this court rendered in George v. Elizabeth [1999 KHC 271] submitted that a scribe can also be an attestor though he was not labeled as an attesting witness in the document. A mere perusal of Ext.A3 would show that there is no indication that the scribe affixed his signature as one of the attesting witnesses. But his signature is seen affixed only as a scribe to the document. After the signature of the testator towards the last portion of the Will, one witness subscribed his signature in the capacity as an attesting witness. Thereafter the name and address of the scribe with his signature written in the capacity as scribe to the document. The witnesses were not numbered serially because there was only one attesting witness to the Will, apart from the scribe. It is specified in the Will itself that the scribe subscribed his signature as the scribe to the document by stating that “ezhuthiya” which stands for “written by”. The witnesses were not numbered serially because there was only one attesting witness to the Will, apart from the scribe. It is specified in the Will itself that the scribe subscribed his signature as the scribe to the document by stating that “ezhuthiya” which stands for “written by”. In short, there is nothing in Ext.A3 to show that the scribe had affixed his signature both in the capacity as a scribe and as an attesting witness. 4. What actually constitute an attesting witness to a document of testamentary succession -Will or Codicil requires consideration, apart from the questions framed at the time of admission that whether the courts below have appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with the mandate under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and whether the propounder had dispelled all suspicious circumstances attached to the execution of the Will - Ext.A3. 5. In Ext.A3 Will, there is nothing to show that the scribe had affixed his signature in the document both in the capacity as an attesting witness and as a scribe to the document. The attesting witnesses were not serially numbered presumably on the reason that there is only one attesting witness to the document. The scribe signed on the document only in the status of scribe. If he had the intention to stand as an attesting witness to the document, apart from his status as scribe to the document, there might be some indication in the document itself either numbering the witnesses as 1 and 2 serially or stating that the status of scribe as “scribe and witness”. There is no such indication anywhere in Ext.A3 Will so as to satisfy that the scribe had affixed his signature both in the capacity as a scribe and as an attesting witness or that he had possessed the required animus to stand as an attesting witness. The subsequent oral evidence after the death of the testator, may have its own embellishment, especially when summoned at the instance of propounder or party to the litigation. It is not permissible to introduce a new status to the scribe by mounting on the witness box unless there is some indication in the Will or Codicil so as to show the elements of intention possessed by the scribe to stand as an attesting witness. It is not permissible to introduce a new status to the scribe by mounting on the witness box unless there is some indication in the Will or Codicil so as to show the elements of intention possessed by the scribe to stand as an attesting witness. A mere subsequent development at the time of examination of scribe as a witness to the document may not be sufficient unless there are elements of required intention discernible from the document itself. A person who had put his signature only as a scribe to the document cannot claim another status unless there is something to support his stand from the document itself. 6. Normally, as far as a testamentary succession -Will or Codicil, is concerned, there can be three set of witnesses viz., (1) attesting witnesses (2) the scribe (3) the person or the document writer who prepared the draft. Only attesting witnesses alone were brought under the mandate of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and their evidence alone brought under the relevancy of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, though the other two set of witnesses viz., the scribe and the person or the document writer who prepared the draft may have their own roles to play by virtue of succeeding sections of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, in the matter of proof and execution of a Will or Codicil. The mandate under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act is not amenable for any kind of relaxation, even substantial compliance may not be sufficient. Regarding proof, the succeeding sections to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act would come into play when there is non-availability of any of the attesting witnesses for examination in proof of execution of Will or Codicil. There is no role to be played, in the discharge of mandate both under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act for any witness other than the attesting witness, though the evidence of scribe or the person who prepared the draft may have some relevancy in the matter of testing the reliability of attesting witnesses who were summoned in proof of due execution of document of testamentary succession, apart from the role to be played under the succeeding sections of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. In short, attestation by two witnesses in accordance with the mandate under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act cannot be relaxed and what is material in the matter of proof principally lies on the requirement as mandated under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act to summon and examine atleast one of the attesting witnesses, if alive, capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the court. Normally, the scribe or the person who prepared the draft will not have much role to be played in the matter of proof of Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act except for the purpose of examining the reliability of the attesting witness who was summoned for that purpose. Then the question comes. When the document signed by the scribe in the capacity as the person in whose handwriting the document was prepared, whether he can be brought under the ambit of an attesting witness simply on the reason that he had subsequently deposed that he is also an attesting witness, unless there is something which would show his status as an attesting witness discernible from the document or atleast some indication in that behalf. 7. The legal requirement of attestation should be proved and cannot be presumed. When there is no evidence of witnesses that they subscribed their signatures with the intention to attest its execution, it cannot be said that the Will is properly attested. In so far as the attesting witnesses are concerned, the only statutory requisite is that they should have the necessary animus testandi or intention to attest the document. It shall not be a subsequent development after execution of the Will or Codicil at the instance of the propounder or any of the parties to the proceedings, hence mandates something more than mere affixture of signature as a scribe to the document in order to bring him within the ambit of “an attesting witness”. Something should be there in the document atleast to support the intention/animus exercised to stand as an attesting witness to the execution. A mere affixture of signature in the capacity as a scribe to the document is not sufficient to bring him within the ambit of “an attesting witness”. Something should be there in the document atleast to support the intention/animus exercised to stand as an attesting witness to the execution. A mere affixture of signature in the capacity as a scribe to the document is not sufficient to bring him within the ambit of “an attesting witness”. The oral evidence adduced without the support of something discernible from the document, which would prima facie satisfy the animus to stand as an attesting witness, is of no use and cannot be accepted in proof of execution. 8. The Apex Court in N.Kamalam (dead) and Another v. Ayyaswamy and Another [ AIR 2001 SC 2802 : (2001) 7 SCC 503 ] considered the effect of subscribing a signature by a scribe in a Will or Codicil and the question whether it would amount to attestation in the following lines: “Effect of subscribing a signature on the part of the scribe cannot be identified to be of same status as that of the attesting witnesses. Signature of the attesting witnesses as on a document, required attestation (admittedly in the case of a Will the same is required), is a requirement of the statute thus, cannot be equated with that of the scribe. In such a case, it could not be said that in the event of there being an intent to attest, that itself should be sufficient compliance of the requirement of law. The animus to attest, is not available so far as the scribe is concerned; he is not a witness to the Will but a mere writer of the Will. The statutory requirement as noticed above cannot thus be transposed in favour of the writer and it could go against the propounder where both the witnesses were named in Will with detailed address and no attempt was made to bring them or to produce them before the Court as to satisfy the judicial conscience. Presence of scribe and his signature appearing on the document does not by itself be taken to be proof of the due attestation unless the situation is so expressed in the document itself.” 9. Earlier, the Apex Court has laid down the law in Mathew OOmmen v. Suseela Mathew [ AIR 2006 SC 786 : (2006) 1 SCC 519 : 2006 (1) KLT 626 ] that there is no illegality for the scribe to stand as an attesting witness. Earlier, the Apex Court has laid down the law in Mathew OOmmen v. Suseela Mathew [ AIR 2006 SC 786 : (2006) 1 SCC 519 : 2006 (1) KLT 626 ] that there is no illegality for the scribe to stand as an attesting witness. There is no requirement in law that a scribe cannot be an attesting witness for attestation and what is required is the intention to attest. It was also laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram and another v. Suresh and others [ AIR 2004 SC 436 : (2003) 12 SCC 35 ] that the court must be satisfied by the testimony of witness that what he did satisfies the requirement of being an attesting witness. 10. What is involved in George's case (supra)is the attestation of Will by the person who drafted the Will along with another attesting witness. The scribe also signed on the document. The question came up before the Division Bench of this Court in George's case (supra) is whether an attesting witness should be labelled in the document as the attesting witness. Earlier, another Division Bench of this Court in Varghese v. Oommen ( 1994(2) KLT 620 ) held that an attesting witness need not be labelled in the document as an attesting witness and that a document writer also can be an attestor. The relevant portion of the judgment extracted below for reference : “We may not be wrong in saying that no form of attestation is prescribed by statute, but it is necessary that the witness should put his signature with the intention of attesting it and the attestation must follow execution and not precede it. A witness to be attesting witness need not be labelled as attesting witness and the place at which the signature or thumb mark of witness is subscribed to the document is not decisive to hold whether witness was or was not an attesting witness.” 11. There is no mandate for any particular form of attestation anywhere in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. There is no prohibition for any scribe or the person who drafted the Will to act as an attesting witness and what is required is the animus to stand as an attesting witness and the court must be satisfied that what the witness did satisfies the intention to stand as an attesting witness to the document. There is no prohibition for any scribe or the person who drafted the Will to act as an attesting witness and what is required is the animus to stand as an attesting witness and the court must be satisfied that what the witness did satisfies the intention to stand as an attesting witness to the document. Necessarily, the oral evidence being a subsequent one may have its own embellishment when the witness summoned at the instance of propounder or the party to proceedings and it should be tested under the background in which the Will or Codicil was executed in reference to the attending circumstances so as to find out indications from the document which would satisfy the intention possessed to stand as attesting witness. A mere subsequent assertion by the scribe in the witness box without having an indication to show elements of intention to stand as an attesting witness from the document may not be sufficient to sanctify the status of an “attesting witness”. 12. In the instant case, there is only one attesting witness. The scribe affixed his signature only in the status of scribe. The oral evidence tendered by the scribe as PW2 did not specify anything with respect to his intention to stand as an attesting witness. On the other hand what is spoken by him is that he had the occasion to see the affixture of signature by the testator and that he had signed on the document after affixture of signature by the testator and by one attesting witness. The mandate of two attesting witnesses under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act has not been complied with in Ext.A3. Hence it has no legal effect. 13. Ext.A3 also stood as shrouded by suspicious circumstances that on earlier occasions, the testator opted to register all the Wills executed by him and even the cancellations. But entirely a different approach adopted in the matter of Ext.A3, which was not registered and no satisfactory explanation offered in that behalf. The testator belonged to Pangappara. But Ext.A3 was executed at the office of the document writer at Vellarada, a distant place. Pangappara is situated within the jurisdiction of Kazhakoottom Sub Registrar office. All the earlier Wills and cancellations were executed within the jurisdiction of Kazhakoottom Sub Registrar office and no explanation offered as to why Ext.A3 was executed at a distant place. But Ext.A3 was executed at the office of the document writer at Vellarada, a distant place. Pangappara is situated within the jurisdiction of Kazhakoottom Sub Registrar office. All the earlier Wills and cancellations were executed within the jurisdiction of Kazhakoottom Sub Registrar office and no explanation offered as to why Ext.A3 was executed at a distant place. There is failure to dispel the suspicious circumstance attached to its execution. The decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court, hence deserves no interference. The appeal fails, dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.