JUDGMENT : The preliminary decree for partition is brought under challenge by the 3rd defendant mainly on two grounds that there is failure to appreciate the last testament, Ext.B1, left out by the testator, one Janaki by the trial court and secondly on the ground that the preliminary decree is not in accordance with the mandate under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The parties are Thiyyas among Hindus. 2. Regarding the genuineness and due execution of Ext.B1, one of the attesting witnesses was examined as DW2. Going by Ext.B1 Will, it is clear that there are three witnesses to the document and it was written in a diary signed by the testator. 3. DW2, one of the attesting witnesses was examined in proof of due execution of the Will. But going by Ext.B1, the alleged Will, it is clear that there is no attestation as mandated under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925. There is nothing in the document that the execution was effected in accordance with the mandate under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, which is extracted below for reference: “63(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.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The Will should be attested atleast by two witnesses under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act. It further mandates that (i) the witnesses should have seen the affixture of signature or mark by the testator in the Will or had received a personal acknowledgment from the testator regarding his signature or mark affixed and that (ii) the witnesses should have signed the Will in the presence of the testator. It further mandates that (i) the witnesses should have seen the affixture of signature or mark by the testator in the Will or had received a personal acknowledgment from the testator regarding his signature or mark affixed and that (ii) the witnesses should have signed the Will in the presence of the testator. These are the two inseparable requirements to be satisfied in proof of due execution and cannot be brought under the purview of procedural law, but will form the essence of the requirement embodied under that provision and hence, a mere substantial compliance may not be sufficient to bring the matter within its sweep. Necessarily, the abovesaid mandate should reflect in the execution of the testament, a Will or Codicil and something should be there in the Will or testament regarding the compliance of abovesaid two statutory requirements. Hence, it is not permissible to introduce the said requirement at first in the court after the death of the testator unless there is something discernible from the document, the Will or testament regarding its compliance. That is really lacking in the instant case, wherein there is not even any mention with respect to the compliance of the said requirements. Hence, it cannot be said that the Will was executed in accordance with the mandate under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to look into the earlier legal position settled by this Court in Gopinathan Nair Maheswaran Nair v. Madhavi Amma Nirmala Bai and Others ( 2019 (3) KHC 950 ), wherein it was held that the mandate under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act is not amenable for any kind of relaxation and even substantial compliance may not be sufficient. 6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that some alterations were made in the Will by deleting certain portions from the alleged Will and claims that it was done by the testator. But it is not necessary to go into that issue since the Will is found to be not executed in terms of the mandate under Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act. 7. Necessarily, the property would stand devolved upon the legal heirs in accordance with the devolution under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. But it is not necessary to go into that issue since the Will is found to be not executed in terms of the mandate under Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act. 7. Necessarily, the property would stand devolved upon the legal heirs in accordance with the devolution under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Admittedly, there is no legal heirs, who would come under the purview of 'firstly, 'secondly' or 'thirdly' as enumerated under the said section. Both the plaintiff and the defendants claim that they are the heirs of the father of the deceased testator. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to one share each and defendants 4 to 10 are entitled to one share jointly, besides the one share belonged to a third person, who was not made as a party to the suit since his whereabouts are not known for the last 40 years. Hence, the appeal fails, but equity shall be worked out at the time of final decree so as to allot the portion of property wherein the building is situated in plaint B schedule item No.1 property in occupation of 3rd defendant, to his share to the extent possible. The appeal is dismissed.