JUDGMENT : 1. This is a second appeal by the defendants. 2. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking for declaration that she was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.10 of Chikkaganjur Village measuring eight acres. It was her case that she was the daughter of C.M. Jaffer Sheriff and defendants 1 and 2 were the sons of said C.M. Jaffer Sheriff. She stated that her father C.M. Jaffer Sheriff had executed a registered Will dated 17.02.1976 in her favour and thereafter passed away on 02.03.1976. She stated that on the death of her father C.M. Jaffer Sheriff, the bequest came into effect and she had become the owner. 3. This suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the Will set up by the plaintiff could not be accepted since C.M. Jaffer Sheriff was in no position to execute a Will. They categorically denied the execution of the Will. They also set up the contention that the suit property had in fact being gifted to them by C.M. Jaffer Sheriff in the year 1976 itself and they had thus become owners of the suit property. 4. It would be pertinent to state here that after the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, which was originally numbered as O.S.No.12/1987, the defendants also filed a suit in O.S.No.8/1992 seeking for a declaration that they were the owners on the basis of an oral Gift made by C.M. Jaffer Sheriff. 5. The Trial Court clubbed both the suits and proceeded to decree the suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the defendants. The Trial Court took the view that the Will had been admitted and the defendants had failed to prove the Gift in their favour. The Trial Court negatived the contentions of the defendants that the bequest was actually made in favour of the 4th defendant, who was also called Mujeebunnissa. 6. The defendants, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the decree of the plaintiff’s suit in O.S.No.343/1996. 7. It may be pertinent to state here that the defendants did not choose to prefer any appeal challenging the dismissal of their suit. Thus, the plea set up by them that they had become owners of the property in question by way of a Gift and that the property was also the subject matter of bequest in favour of the 4th defendant was stood negatived and became final. 8. Thus, the plea set up by them that they had become owners of the property in question by way of a Gift and that the property was also the subject matter of bequest in favour of the 4th defendant was stood negatived and became final. 8. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the finding of the Trial Court and held that the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff has been admitted and she has thus become the owner of the property. 9. It is against this decree holding that there was a bequest in favour of the plaintiff, the present second appeal is preferred by the defendants. 10. This second appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: “(1) Whether the courts below while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded to the property under the Will dated 17.02.1976 has properly considered the evidence on record, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 68 of the Evidence Act, with regard to proof of the Will? (2) Whether in the present facts, the contention of the 4th defendant with regard to existence of the Will has been properly appreciated by the courts below while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief?” 11. It is settled law that no document, which is required in law to be attested, can be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least had been called for the purpose of proving the execution as contemplated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In other words, if any party to the suit were to put forth an attested document as evidence in support of his claim, the Courts cannot accept the said documents as evidence until and unless an attesting witness has been examined to prove the execution of the Wiil. 12. In the instant case, admittedly, the plaintiff set up the registered Will dated 17.02.1976. Admittedly, neither the attesting witness, nor the scribe of the document was examined. The Will, being an instrument required to be attested by law, the same could not be used as evidence in the light of the bar under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. Both the Courts, despite this legal position, have come to the conclusion that the Will was admitted and therefore, the suit deserves to be decreed. 14. The Will, being an instrument required to be attested by law, the same could not be used as evidence in the light of the bar under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. Both the Courts, despite this legal position, have come to the conclusion that the Will was admitted and therefore, the suit deserves to be decreed. 14. It is to be noticed here that the question of admission of a Will would not arise since the Will cannot be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses to the Will has been examined. It is of no consequence in law, whether the execution of the Will is admitted or not. As and when a Will is propounded, the law cast an obligation on the propounder of the Will to prove its execution in the manner prescribed by law. 15. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not chosen to prove the execution of the Will by examining the attesting witnesses. It is, therefore, clear that the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court on the assumption that the Will was admitted cannot be sustained. They are accordingly set aside. 16. The question of law is answered in favour of the appellants/defendants. The second appeal is accordingly allowed.