JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The appellant and deceased respondent No.2 Durgi Devi (for short Plaintiffs), instituted a suit, seeking there through, a, declaration for annulling, the, registered testamentary disposition of deceased testator Bhadru, and, as embodied in Ex. DW-1/A, and, where through he bequeathed his estate, vis-a-vis, the defendant/respondent No.1 herein (for short “the defendant’), suit whereof became dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kullu, District Kullu, H.P, through, a, verdict made thereon on 20.6.2005, and, also the further decree, of, injunction became declined to them. 2. The aggrieved therefrom plaintiffs, cast a challenge thereagainst, by preferring Civil appeal No. 53/05, before the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P, and, thereon(s), a, verdict affirming and maintaining the afore made verdict by the learned Civil Judge, upon, Civil Suit No. 123 of 2002, became rendered. 3. The aggrieved therefrom plaintiffs, constituted thereagainst the instant Regular second appeal before this Court. When the instant appeal came up for admission before this Court, on 2.3.2006, it came to be admitted on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- “Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are against the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 3 of the Transfer of the Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act?” 4. Uncontrovertedly in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, adduction of evidence, appertaining to the issue, of, valid execution of, testamentary disposition Ex. DW-1/A by the deceased testator Bhadru, and, whereon(s) the discharging evidence, became enjoined to be adduced by the defendant, only one of the attesting witness thereto, namely one Mohnu Ram (DW-1) was alive. Consequently, the defendant, the propounder of Ex. DW-1/A, for discharging the afore onus, as, become cast upon him, led him to the witness box. The afore made dependence by the pronounder of Ex. DW-1/A, upon, the sole testimony, of, one of the attesting witness thereto, cannot be construed, to be, legally fallible, as, (i) the mandate borne in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, mandate whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, (ii) permits adduction of proof of execution, of, a testamentary disposition, by its author, through rather not both the apposite attesting witnesses thereto, being led into the witness box, rather reiteratedly permits discharge, of, apposite onus as becomes cast, upon, the propounder hence only upon one of them, if alive, becoming led into the witness box. “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 which it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]” Consequently, the deposition of DW-1 one Mohnu Ram, an attesting witness to Ex. DW-1/A, was sufficient, subject to his testimony withstanding the mandate of Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, or hence was sufficient to sway this Court, to strike an inference qua the apposite onus vis-a-vis valid and due execution of Ex. DW-1/A, becoming therethrough(s) fully discharged, hence by the propounder thereof. Necessarily hence, in tandem therewith one Mohnu Ram was, enjoined to testify that the deceased testator, had in his presence scribed his thumb impression(s) thereon, and further that he too likewise, in presence of the deceased testator, had put his thumb impression thereon. However, the contemporaneous presence of both the attesting witnesses to Ex, DW-1/A, at the stage of its execution by the deceased testator, is, not required. Consequently, any lack of recollection(s) by Mr. Mohnu Ram vis-a-vis the name of the other attesting witness to Ex DW-1/A, cannot coax, any conclusion from this Court, that hence Ex. DW-1/A being construable to be not validly and duly executed, as, the contemporaneous presence(s) of both rather at the stage of its execution, as aforestated, is, not statutorily required. “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 fro 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 been some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the directionof the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of 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 from of attestation shall be necessary.” 5. Be that as it may, yet an imperative dictate became cast upon Mohnu Ram, to, make a testification, that he had seen, the deceased testator to make his thumb impression on Ex. DW-1/A, and, also to thereafter state that he too, in the presence, of the deceased testator, had made his thumb impression(s), upon, Ex. DW-1/A. A reading of his examination-inchief unfolds that he has made compliance, with, the afore statutory dictate, as, cast upon him. However, in his crossexamination, he has admitted that Ex.DW-1/A rather was written earlier thereto, and that thereafter he was made to sign the same. Even though, in his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance about the identity of the thumb impression(s) existing in red circle, on, Ex. DW-1/A, yet the effect thereof is qua it, not leading to an inference, that he hence has denied, the, authorship of Ex. DW-1/A by the deceased testator, as he has denied, a suggestion, as, became put to him, that Ex. DW-1/A, was not executed, by the deceased Bhadru. 6. Even if the afore minimal contradiction, does exist, inter-se, the, examination-in-chief, and, the cross-examination of Mohnu Ram, however all effects thereof, becomes completely eroded, from, Ex. DW-1/A being a registered instrument, and, thereon(s) hence existing, the sealed and signatured endorsement(s) of the Registering officer concerned, and, theirs making exemplification(s) that the contents of Ex. 6. Even if the afore minimal contradiction, does exist, inter-se, the, examination-in-chief, and, the cross-examination of Mohnu Ram, however all effects thereof, becomes completely eroded, from, Ex. DW-1/A being a registered instrument, and, thereon(s) hence existing, the sealed and signatured endorsement(s) of the Registering officer concerned, and, theirs making exemplification(s) that the contents of Ex. DW-1/A being read-over and explained, to the deceased testator and (i) whereafter it becoming accepted for registration besides (ii) with the unchallenged existence(s) thereon(s), of, the thumb impression of the deceased testator further constrains this Court, to, infer that hence the afore endorsement, as, made by the Registering Officer hence becoming sequelled, only after his explaining, the, contents of Ex. DW-1/A, to the deceased testator, and, also his ensuring qua theirs becoming fully comprehended by the latter (iii) whereupon it acquires the utmost tenacious probative sanctity, as, its making remains unchallanged, (iv) thereupon, Ex. DW-1/A, is, unflinchingly concludable, to, be validly and duly executed by the deceased testator. Moreover, since, Mohnu Ram, has also put his unchallanged thumb impression thereon, rather as an identifier, of, the deceased testator, and, with no cross-examination, becoming meted to him, for seeking therethrough(s) elicitation(s) in denial, of, the afore existence(s) thereon, of, the thumb impression of the deceased testator Bhadru, and, also of his thumb impression thereon, thereupon, this Court becomes coaxed to conclude that Ex. DW-1/A becomes proven to be validly and duly executed, and, also hence its execution, being made by the deceased testator, upon, his holding the apposite compos mentis. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed, and, the impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. Substantial question of law answered accordingly. No costs.