JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. Ninnong Ratan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sanjay Taye, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. The challenge in the present proceeding by the appellant, herein, is to a judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, granting probate of a will, dated 31.10.2006, to the respondent, herein. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: The sole respondent, herein, had instituted the PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, praying for grant of probate to a will, dated 31.10.2006, executed by his mother Late Opet Dai. It is to be noted that the appellant, herein, is the brother of the sole respondent, herein. The will, dated 31.10.2006, was projected to be the last will of Late Opet Dai, the mother of the appellant, herein, as well as mother of the sole respondent. The sole respondent, in the above-noted PSG Probate Case No.246/2012, had projected that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was duly executed by the testator and the same was attested by the attesting witnesses in accordance with the provisions by law. It was further projected that the will, in question, was registered before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat, vide Registration No. 383, dated 31.10.2006. The Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, basing on the materials coming on record, had framed 3(three) issues in the matter, vide order, dated 28.04.2014. Thereafter, on conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, was pleased to allow PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, by granting a probate of the said will, dated 31.10.2006, in favour of the sole respondent. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 4. Mr. Thereafter, on conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, was pleased to allow PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, by granting a probate of the said will, dated 31.10.2006, in favour of the sole respondent. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 4. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel for the appellant, herein, has, at the outset, submitted that the will, dated 31.10.2006, projected to be the last will of the mother of the appellant, namely, Late Opet Dai, was not executed in the manner required under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has further submitted that the requirement of the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was also not complied with in the matter. 5. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has also submitted that the projected attesting witnesses of the execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006, had denied affixing their signatures on the will and had also projected that their signatures were forged on the will, in question. 6. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, by referring to the evidences brought on record on behalf of the sole respondent, herein, in the proceedings of PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, has submitted that the sole respondent had adduced evidences of himself and his wife as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively. However, in their depositions, they had not deposed that the witnesses attesting the will, dated 31.10.2006, had done so in their presence, and/or, that, they had seen the testatrix signing the said will. 7. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has submitted that none of the attesting witnesses had deposed as the witnesses of PW-1. The learned counsel has further submitted that 3(three) attesting witnesses had deposed as DWs and they had, in their evidence, categorically denied having attested the will, dated 31.10.2006. 8. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has submitted that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was purportedly registered by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat. However, in his deposition; the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat, had denied of having seen Late Opet Dai putting her thumb impression on her last will before him. 9. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has submitted that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was purportedly registered by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat. However, in his deposition; the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat, had denied of having seen Late Opet Dai putting her thumb impression on her last will before him. 9. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has submitted that during the cross- examination of DW-4, it was deposed by the DW-4 that he had also not seen any of the witnesses named in the will, dated 31.10.2006, subscribing their signatures on the will and further deposed that during the registration of the will, in question; the witnesses had not appeared before him. Mr. Ratan, has further submitted that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was executed on being brought by the sole respondent before the DW-4 and the same was so executed only on a statement made by the sole respondent that the witnesses had already put their signatures on the will, dated 31.10.2006, before it was brought before him. 10. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, by referring to the impugned judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, has submitted that with regard to the issue no. 1; the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, had, after considering the evidences brought on record, proceeded to disbelief the depositions of the attesting witnesses who had deposed as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, respectively. It was further submitted that after the evidences of the attesting witnesses to the will, dated 31.10.2006, was rejected; the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, had proceeded to examine the evidence of DW-4 and on such examination, by recording a finding that the DW-4 had deposed that the purported will was executed by the testatrix before him; proceeded to further conclude that, in the event, the signatures of the attesting witnesses were forged, the DW-4 would not have countersigned and registered the will, dated 31.10.2006. 11. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, by referring to the deposition of DW-4, has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, basing thereon, are clearly perverse and accordingly, it has to be construed that even by application of the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; the execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006, must be held to have not been established. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has further submitted that the respondent, herein, had miserably failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006, by adducing clear and satisfactory evidence. 12. In the above premises, Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has submitted that the will, dated 31.10.2006, having not been demonstrated to have been executed following the procedure prescribed by law; the judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, would mandate an interference from this Court. 13. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has, by referring to the prayer of the sole respondent, herein, in interlocutory application being IA(c)83(AP)2022, for bringing on record, additional documents and praying for adducing of additional evidence of one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Okok Ering i.e. DW-1; submitted that the same would not mandate an acceptance, in- as-much as, the same is in clear violation of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is, accordingly, submitted by Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, that the purported letter, dated 20.10.2021, stated to have been issued by DW-1 along with the affidavit-cum-declaration, dated 05.04.2022, of the same witness, has been so made after 5(five) years of the pronouncement of the judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has, therefore, submitted that the prayer made in the above-noted interlocutory application, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 14. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ratan, learned counsel for the appellant, herein, has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i). Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh & ors ., reported in (2009) 4 SCC 780 (ii). Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini(dead) through legal representatives & ors ., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 615 ; and (iii). Ramesh Verma(dead) through LRs. v. Lajesh Saxena(dead) by LRs. & anr ., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 257 15. Per contra, Mr. Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini(dead) through legal representatives & ors ., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 615 ; and (iii). Ramesh Verma(dead) through LRs. v. Lajesh Saxena(dead) by LRs. & anr ., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 257 15. Per contra, Mr. Taye, learned counsel for the sole respondent, herein, has submitted that the probate petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, registered as PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, instituted by the sole respondent before the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, for grant of probate in respect of a will, dated 31.10.2006, executed by his mother Late Opet Dai, was verified by one of the attesting witnesses Shri Obang Mengu i.e. DW-3. 16. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has further submitted that the attesting witnesses were owned-up by the appellant, herein, and accordingly, they refused to depose as the witnesses of the sole respondent, herein, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012. The said attesting witnesses in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, had deposed as DWs. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has also submitted that the attesting witnesses had written letters which were exhibited by the sole respondent in his deposition before the learned trial Court wherein, they had requested the respondent, herein, to delete their names from the will, dated 31.10.2006, which was projected to have established the due and proper execution of the will. 17. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has further submitted that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, on examination of the depositions of the attesting witnesses who had deposed as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, respectively, had concluded that their denial about having attested the will, dated 31.10.2006, to be not credible; and had also doubted that the depositions as made by them, was not so made out of free will. 18. It was further projected by Mr. Taye, learned counsel, that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, on consideration of the evidence of the attesting witnesses, had held the same to be half-hearted and not honest to themselves. It was further held that the evidence of the attesting witnesses before the learned trial Court, did not help the defendant/ appellant, herein. 19. Mr. It was further held that the evidence of the attesting witnesses before the learned trial Court, did not help the defendant/ appellant, herein. 19. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has submitted that the learned Court below, by invoking the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had scrutinized the evidence of other witnesses on record and thereafter, proceeded to grant the probate of the will, dated 31.10.2006; vide its judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012. 20. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has further submitted that even if it is held that the execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006, to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was not established by the respondent No. 1, in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the execution of the will, in question, having been denied by the attesting witnesses, the recourse taken by the learned trial Court to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and having held the execution to have been so done by basing on the other evidences available on record; the judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, would not mandate any interference from this Court. 21. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has further submitted that the learned trial Court after having discarded the evidence of the attesting witnesses, had relied upon the evidence of DW-4 i.e. Registering Officer of the will, dated 31.10.2006. The learned counsel has further submitted that one of the attesting witnesses namely Shri Obang Mengu i.e. DW-3, while filing the probate petition being PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012; had verified the probate petition by putting his signature therein and has stated that he was one of the witnesses to the last will of Late Opet Dai and therein, had also stated that he had seen the testator affix her signature on the will, dated 31.10.2006. 22. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has further submitted that the appellant, herein, had failed to dislodge the said statement so made by DW-3 in the application filed by the sole respondent under the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Accordingly, Mr. 22. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has further submitted that the appellant, herein, had failed to dislodge the said statement so made by DW-3 in the application filed by the sole respondent under the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Accordingly, Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has submitted that the said statement of DW-3 in the verification to the application under the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, filed by the sole respondent, herein, when read with the deposition of DW-4 i.e. the authority registering the will, dated 31.10.2006; it is amply clear that the execution of will, dated 30.10.2006, was so done in the manner as contemplated under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, stood established. 23. Mr. Taye, learned counsel, has further submitted that the letter, dated 20.10.2021, along with the affidavit-cum-declaration sworn by Okok Ering i.e. DW-1, brought on record, in the present proceeding by way of filing an interlocutory application being IA(c)83/2022, would go to establish the fact that the findings recorded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, vide judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012; is not erroneous and in fact, the will, dated 31.10.2006, was so executed in the manner as contemplated by law. 24. In support of his submissions, Mr. Taye, learned counsel for the sole respondent, herein, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. B. Ramesh(dead) by LRs. v. K. M. Veeraje URS(dead) by LRs. & ors. , reported in (2013) 7 SCC 490 , and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Saroja & ors. v. Chennimalai & ors ., reported in 2003 (4) CTC 330 25. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. I have also closely perused the decisions relied upon by the parties to the present proceeding. 26. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, is not disputed and accordingly, the same is not further discussed. 27. It is only required to be noticed that the sole respondent, herein, had instituted the present proceeding by invoking the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, praying for grant of probate to a will executed by his mother Late Opet Dai on 31.10.2006. 27. It is only required to be noticed that the sole respondent, herein, had instituted the present proceeding by invoking the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, praying for grant of probate to a will executed by his mother Late Opet Dai on 31.10.2006. The said will was registered with the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat. 28. The manner of execution of a will, has been laid down in the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the provisions of Section 63, for ready reference, is extracted hereinbelow: “ "63. Execution of unprivileged wills. - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according 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 acknowledgment 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." 29. Further, the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mandates, as under: “ "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. Further, the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mandates, 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.” 30. As would be evident from the contents of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, that to execute a will, as contemplated therein; the testator would have to sign or affix his mark to it, or the same has to be signed by some other person in his presence and on his direction. Further, the signature or mark of the testator, or, the signature of the person signing for him, has to be so placed that it would appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. 31. The provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, further mandates that the will shall have to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom, has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to it or has seen some other person sign it, in the presence and on the direction of the testator, or, has received from the testator, personal acknowledgment of a signature or mark, or, the signature of such other person and that, each of the witnesses has signed the will in the presence of the testator. 32. The provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, also mandates that it would not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time. Further, no particular form of attestation has been prescribed. 32. The provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, also mandates that it would not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time. Further, no particular form of attestation has been prescribed. The conditions prescribed for a valid execution and attestation of a will under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, are mandatory in nature and any failure or deficiency in adherence, thereto, would be at the pain of invalidation of such document/instrument of disposition of property. 33. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enjoins that if a document is required by law to be attested, it would not be used as an evidence unless one attesting witness, at least, if alive, and is subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence, proves its execution. The proviso attached to this Section relaxes this requirement in case of a document, not being a will but has been registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed, is specifically denied. In other words, for establishing a valid execution of a will, at least, one of the attesting witnesses, if alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence, has to depose for proving such execution. 34. The proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would have no application insofar as, qua a will. The proof of a will to be admissible in evidence, with probative potential, being a document required by law, to be attested by two witnesses, would necessarily need proof of its execution through at least one of the attesting witnesses if alive, and subject to the process of the Court concerned and if capable of giving evidence. 35. Having noticed the purport of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as well as Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; this Court would now proceed to examine the evidence of the attesting witnesses before the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012. 36. As noticed hereinabove, the sole respondent, herein, had deposed in the proceedings as PW-1, and had also adduced the evidence of his wife, namely, Aido Dai, as PW-2. 36. As noticed hereinabove, the sole respondent, herein, had deposed in the proceedings as PW-1, and had also adduced the evidence of his wife, namely, Aido Dai, as PW-2. A perusal of the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 would go to reveal that the witnesses had not attested the will, dated 31.10.2006, in their presence and further that the testatrix had also not affixed her signature, thereon, in their presence. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 further reflects that she was also not aware of any intention of her deceased mother-in-law for execution of the instant will. 37. None of the projected attesting witnesses had been summoned by the respondent, herein, to depose in his favour in support of the execution of will, dated 30.10.2006. It was projected by the respondent, herein, that the attesting witnesses were owned-up by the appellant, herein, and accordingly, they had refused to depose as the witness of the sole respondent in the said proceedings. The attesting witnesses, had, however, deposed in the said proceedings as the witnesses of the appellant, herein. 38. DW-1, Okok Ering, one of the attesting witnesses, in his deposition on affidavit, had stated that his signature was forged on the will, in question. During his cross-examination, the DW-1 had submitted that he had never signed on the will though the signatures on the will, dated 31.10.2006, appears to resemble his signature. The DW-1 further deposed that he had no objection to send his signature for forensic examination if so required by the Court and he was ready to face any legal consequence. The DW-1 had also deposed that he had written a letter to the sole respondent denying to have put his signature on the will, in question. The DW-2, who is also one of the projected attesting witnesses on the will, dated 31.10.2006, had deposed that his signature on the will, in question, was also forged. During his cross-examination, the DW-2 had denied his signature on the will. The DW-2 had also deposed that he had no objection in sending his signature for forensic examination if so required by the Court and had further deposed that he was ready to surrender his Gam Coat if his signature was found to be genuine and was also ready to face any legal consequence. 39. The DW-2 had also deposed that he had no objection in sending his signature for forensic examination if so required by the Court and had further deposed that he was ready to surrender his Gam Coat if his signature was found to be genuine and was also ready to face any legal consequence. 39. Obang Mengu, a projected attesting witness of the will and also the person who had signed in the verification submitted along with the application so filed under the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by the sole respondent, herein; had deposed as DW- 3, in the proceedings of PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012. In his deposition on affidavit, the DW-3 had submitted that he did not remember of having attested his signature as witness on the last will of Late Opet Dai. The DW- 3 had deposed that he had seen the last will and the signature therein, seems to be that of his but he further deposed that he did not remember standing as witness and giving his signature on any will. During his cross- examination, the DW-3 had stated that he did not remember when he subscribed his signature on the will, in question, and had requested the sole respondent, herein, to delete his name from the said will. 40. As noticed hereinabove; the will, dated 31.10.2006, was registered before the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat. The said Judicial Magistrate before whom the will, in question, was stated to have been executed, had deposed in the proceeding of PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, as DW-4. The deposition- of DW-4, on affidavit, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 1. That the last WILL of Lt. Opet Dai W/o Lt. Lome Dai was brought in my office by Shri Obit Dai S/o Lt. Lome Dai for execution which I have executed on understanding. 2. That Lt. Opet Dai W/o Lt. Lome Dai has not put her thump impression on so called her last WILL before me or my presence. 3. That, the witnesses of the last WILL of Lt. Opet Dai W/o Lt. Lome Dai namely i. Shri Okok Ering, ii. Shri Tagir Tapak, and iii. Shri Obang mengu have not put their signatures before me or in my presence and they have never attended in my office as a witnesses of the last WILL of Lt. 3. That, the witnesses of the last WILL of Lt. Opet Dai W/o Lt. Lome Dai namely i. Shri Okok Ering, ii. Shri Tagir Tapak, and iii. Shri Obang mengu have not put their signatures before me or in my presence and they have never attended in my office as a witnesses of the last WILL of Lt. Opet Dai W/o Lt. Lome Dai. 4. That I swear this declaration is true, that it conceals nothing and no part of it is false, so help me God. And I signed this affidavit on this 5th day of March, 2015 at Longding.” 41. The cross-examination of DW-4, also being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ I know I have been summoned as one of the witness in this probate case. Also I know a WILL was executed by One Opet Dai mother of Obit Dai before me. The P/Ext-1 shown to me today before this court is the WILL executed by Opet Dai before me and P/Ext- 1(A), P/Ext-1(B) and P/Ext-1(C) are my signatures thereon.(1 have not seen all the witnesses named in the WILL while subscribing their signatures and also they did not appear before me. The WILL was brought to me by Obit Dai Con for execution and on my enquiry Sri Obit Dai apprised me that witnesses shown in the WILL have already put their signatures on the same before it was brought to me.” 42. A perusal of the evidence of DW-4 would go to reveal that he had deposed that Late Opet Dai had not put her thumb impression on the will, dated 31.10.2006, in his presence. Further, it was also deposed that the attesting witnesses had not put their signatures in his presence and they had never attended his office as witnesses during the registration of the will. 43. During his cross-examination, the DW-4 had deposed that he knew, a will was executed by one Late Opet Dai, mother of Obit Dai, before him. The DW-4 had also identified the will executed by Late Opet Dai before him and his signature thereon. It was further deposed by DW-4 that he had not seen all the witnesses named on the will while subscribing their signatures and also they did not appear before him. The DW-4 had also identified the will executed by Late Opet Dai before him and his signature thereon. It was further deposed by DW-4 that he had not seen all the witnesses named on the will while subscribing their signatures and also they did not appear before him. It was further deposed that during the cross-examination that the will, dated 30.10.2006, was brought before him by the sole respondent(Obit Dai) for execution and on inquiry made, he was apprised that the witnesses shown on the will, in question, had already put their signatures on the same before it was brought before him. 44. A perusal of the evidence coming on record, more particularly, the DW-1, DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4, would go to reveal that the factum of the projected last will of Late Opet Dai, to have been so executed in terms of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, has not been established. 45. It is not established in the trial by examination of any of the witnesses to will, dated 31.10.2006, that the will was so executed in the manner as contemplated under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Having noticed the position with regard to the materials coming on record during the trial in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012; the judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, is now being examined. 46. The learned trial Court, had vide order, dated 28.04.2014, had framed the following issues: “ i. Whether the testatrix/mother of the both the parties herein had executed any valid 'Will' in favor of Shri Obit Dai? ii. Whether Stamp Act and Registration Act were applicable in the year 2006? iii. Whether executed 'will' can be probated by this court?” 47. With regard to the issue No. 1, the learned trial Court had recorded the following findings and conclusions: “ 6. The governing concept for holding a document to be a valid 'Will' should be a real and properly executed by the testator, who must have been in disposing state of mind; free from all extraneous influences. The testator's plea is presumed to have been sane having a mental capacity to make a valid will until contrary is proved. The governing concept for holding a document to be a valid 'Will' should be a real and properly executed by the testator, who must have been in disposing state of mind; free from all extraneous influences. The testator's plea is presumed to have been sane having a mental capacity to make a valid will until contrary is proved. The 'Will' being a document has to be proved by primary evidence except the court permits a document to be proved by secondary evidence. 'Will' requires attestation by at least two witnesses, one of them must prove its execution as per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 The 'Will' should also has to be executed in accordance with the provisions of section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which stipulates that in order to ascertain whether 'Will' is validly executed and genuine document, the propounder (petitioner) has to show that the testator has signed or affixed his mark on the testament by his own free 'Will'; that he was at the relevant time in a sound and disposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of writing as a 'Will'. The said provision of law also stipulates that the 'Will' should be attested by two witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his Mark, or has seen some other person sign the 'Will' in presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledge of his signature or mark, or sign or mark of some other person. Both the attesting witnesses should have put their signatures on the 'Will' as witness in presence of the testator, though it is not essential that that both the attesting witnesses should be present at the same time before the testator and no particular form of attestation is necessary. In the premises of the above legal provisions and guidelines, let me scrutinize, evidences and see if the purported 'Will' is a validly executed document as per the requirement of law. 7. In the premises of the above legal provisions and guidelines, let me scrutinize, evidences and see if the purported 'Will' is a validly executed document as per the requirement of law. 7. P.W.1, in his affidavital evidence, has stated that the testatrix executed the purported Will on 31.10.2006 in presence of three attesting witnesses namely, Shri Obang Mengu Shri Tagir Tapak and Okok Ering having sound mental capacity, and died on 21,05 2012; the petitioner has not adduced death certificate of testatrix but the defendant has also not disputed death of the testator; as admitted by the defendant, this court did not direct the petitioner for exhibiting death certificate as an evidence. It has been stated by the petitioner that all three witnesses, on behest and duress of the defendant declined to continue and give deposition as witness in his favor. It has been stated by the P. W. 1 in his evidence that the 'Will' was registered on 31.10.2006, from a cursory look at the original 'Will', it is seen that the 'Will' was registered vide Registration No. 383 dated 31.10.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class at Pasighat of East Siang district (A.P). The petitioner stated the testatrix was residing with him since 06.06.2006 on her willingness. It is further stated in his evidence that on 1.10.2006 the defendant came to his house with relatives asking the testatrix to take out all the local beads from her keeping and show those to him. The beads were shown to the defendant, which were under her custody. The petitioner further stated that on this 01.10.2006, the respondent was pressing on for divisions of those properties between the contesting parties, which the testatrix denied. The petitioner in his affidavital evidence stated that on being instructed by the testatrix, he managed Stamp paper for writing the purported 'Will' and arranged three witnesses for execution of the 'Will'. The petitioner stated that on 31.10.2006 above named persons have witnessed the execution of the document by putting their signatures before and on the direction of the testatrix. The Magistrate was finally intimated regarding the execution of the purported 'Will' when he arrived at the petitioner's resident. It is also stated that Shri Obang Mengu, had verified the instant probate application. The petitioner further stated that all these three witnesses declined to be petitioner's witness on being influenced by the respondent. The Magistrate was finally intimated regarding the execution of the purported 'Will' when he arrived at the petitioner's resident. It is also stated that Shri Obang Mengu, had verified the instant probate application. The petitioner further stated that all these three witnesses declined to be petitioner's witness on being influenced by the respondent. The petitioner has exhibited letters written to him by the said witnesses. Ex. -2 dated 06.09.2012, was written to him by Okok Ering, Ex.- 3 dated 31.08.2012, was written to him by Shri Tagir Tapak and Ex. 4 dated 11.12.2012, was written to him by Obang Mengu. Each of the writers asked the petitioner to delete his name from the purported 'Will' by citing similar reasons. Okok Ering communicated that he did not to want to get into family dispute. Sri Tagir Tapak threatened to take action for forging his signature And Shri Obang Mengu requested the petitioner not to call him as petitioner's witness. These frantic letters create a doubt on their integrity and hammer hard on credibility of evidence. Nature of letter and words used in it and also natural behavior of these men implicitly tell us about something which has not come up on record. Their evidence to this extent is not worth believing that the petitioner in any case had forged their signatures. Therefore, when such situation crept in due to denial, it can be assumed that something must have happened to them immediately before and after institution of the present probate case. Their evidence does not therefore; inspire confidence of the court so as to believe alleged forgery done by the petitioner 8. During cross-examination on behalf of the defendant/opposite party, it has been elicited from the petitioner that his father died intestate in 1994; the ancestral Jhum lands were divided between the contesting parties during their father's life time on mutual understanding as certain portion of Jhum land were in possession of parties. Other movable and some immovable properties were under custody and disposal of the testatrix. It is elicited from the petitioner that purported 'Will' is based on the desires of pre-deceased father. It has also been stated by the petitioner during cross- examination that under customs of the Adi community to which the contesting parties belong to; the testatrix was the legal heir for all the properties of the predeceased father. It is elicited from the petitioner that purported 'Will' is based on the desires of pre-deceased father. It has also been stated by the petitioner during cross- examination that under customs of the Adi community to which the contesting parties belong to; the testatrix was the legal heir for all the properties of the predeceased father. It is further elicited that the testatrix was suffering from paralysis and she died consequence of it. However, no specific admission has been elicited, which can show that the testatrix was not in a sound and disposing condition, or move her limbs and speak at the relevant time when purported 'Will' was executed and registered. Without any specific proof pointing towards the mental and physical condition of the testatrix, it cannot be supposed that paralysis could have caused the testatrix being incapable of executing the purported 'Will' and of understanding the repercussions thereof. The defendant has tried to bring in the suspicious circumstances to show that purported 'Will' was signed by the testatrix on being influenced by the petitioner. However, this does not suffice the proposed suspicious circumstance because it is an admitted fact that on 01.10.2006 a clan meeting was held at the residence of the petitioner for division of ancestral properties between the contesting parties wherein the testatrix was one of the attending members. The purported 'Will' was executed on 31.10.2006 as such, it cannot lead to the inference that the testatrix was not in a sound mind and testamentary capacity to execute the same. P. W. 2 happens to be the daughter in-law of the testatrix living together under the same roof. She stated that Shri Obang, Mengu, Shri Tagir Tapak and Okok Ering came to her house at about 2:30 PM and she offered tea to them. She further stated in her affidavit that the witnesses had gone inside the house where the testatrix was living, for affixing their signature as witnesses. PW No. 2 also stated that on being requested by the petitioner, the Magistrate (Atin Padung) also came immediately after the witnesses left her house and met the testatrix. According to PW No. 2, the Magistrate, after meeting the testatrix had asked the petitioner to visit his office. During cross-examination on behalf of the defendant, it is elicited from the PW No. 2 that she had not seen the witnesses putting their signatures on the purported 'Will'. According to PW No. 2, the Magistrate, after meeting the testatrix had asked the petitioner to visit his office. During cross-examination on behalf of the defendant, it is elicited from the PW No. 2 that she had not seen the witnesses putting their signatures on the purported 'Will'. She was not aware of intention of the testatrix for executing a 'Will'. 9. The defendant on the other hand adduced four Defendant's Witness to disprove the claim of petitioner. DW No. 1, 2 & 3 denied having stood as witness of the purported 'Will'. DW No. 1 (Okok Ering) and DW No. 2 (Tagir Tapak) further stated in their affidavital evidence that their signatures have been forged by the petitioner. DW No. 3 stated in his evidence in-chief(affidavit) that signature affixed in the purported last 'Will' of late Opet Dai appeared 'exact' of his signature. DW No. 3 further eloquently stated that he did not remember having stood as witness to the execution of the said document. DW No. 4 (Magistrate) stated in his affidavital evidence that purported last 'Will' of late Opet Dai was brought to his office by the petitioner, as such, he had no occasion to see the testatrix signing or affixing her mark on the said document. DW No. 4 further stated that DW No. 1 to 3 had not put their signature on the purported 'Will' in his presence. The defendant preferred not to tender or adduce his affidavital evidence so as to give the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine him on the contentious issues raised in his pleadings. 10. During the cross-examination, it has been elicited from the DW No. 4 that purported 'Will' was executed by the testatrix before him; he has identified P/Ext.-1 as the last of 'Will' of It. Opet Dai (testatrix) and P/Ext. 1(A), P/Ext.-1(B) & P/Ex. 1(c) as his signatures. It has further been elicited from DW No. 4 he had counter signed on the 'Will' when it was brought to his office by the petitioner. DW No. 3 on being cross- examined on behalf of the petitioner stated that at two occasions, i.e. on 26.11.2012 and 17.03.2015 he requested the petitioner for striking off his name as witness from the 'Will'. DW No. 3 on being cross- examined on behalf of the petitioner stated that at two occasions, i.e. on 26.11.2012 and 17.03.2015 he requested the petitioner for striking off his name as witness from the 'Will'. It is further elicited from the DW No. 3 that the signature affixed in the said document seemed to be his, but he could not recollect the time as to when he made signature. During cross-examination of DW No. 1, he stated that signature affixed in the 'Will' in the witness column resembles his signature. DW No. 1 admitted writing letter to the petitioner but the same was not shown to him in the court for identification. DW No. 2 during cross-examination stated that he did not remember the date of affixing his signature on the 'Will'. DW No. 1 & 2 expressed their willingness to go for scientific (expertise) opinion as regards the veracity of the signatures affixed in the 'Will'. According to section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the scientific opinion is an advisory opinion in respect of a particular fact in issue, which stipulates that controversy cannot wholly be decided based on such opinion In Independent of other evidences. Materials placed on record, as they are, reveal that scientific opinion was neither felt necessary by the defendant nor considered by this court. Testimonies of these three defense witnesses lack any iota to their allegation of forgery; as such reliance cannot be placed upon. They seem to be half hearted; not honest to themselves. Their evidences do not help the defendant, inasmuch as each of one of them pleasing both, the petitioner and defendant. led the signatures been forged, the DW No. 4 would not have counter signed and registered the 'Will'. While arguing the case, the learned Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the 'Will' was not validly executed as the signatures of the witnesses were forged. Further he argued that the testatrix any point of time could not have executed such a 'Will' bequeathing previous ornaments (Local Beads) to the petitioner against the settled norms of Adi society. Therefore, ancestral properties more particularly, the Local Beads would have fully devolved in his interest. He further argued that there is a suspicious circumstance in claim of the petitioner. Therefore, ancestral properties more particularly, the Local Beads would have fully devolved in his interest. He further argued that there is a suspicious circumstance in claim of the petitioner. However, that does not seem acceptable to this court as, had the same been true, the defendant should have taken proper criminal action against the petitioner. Burden of proving forgery lies on the defendant. Counsel for the petitioner on rival submission the stated that the defendant failed to establish suspicious circumstance that the 'Will' was forged by the petitioner having actively involved in of writing it. Though the petitioner has admitted his participation in making of the last 'Will' of the testatrix but unless contrary is proved, preponderance of probability that the last 'Will' was executed in a proper manner by the testatrix has to be accepted for honoring the wish of the testatrix. Counsel for the petitioner has referred few cases rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; the ratio of those judgments is that when has been able to remove the existence of suspicious circumstance in execution of 'Will' the burden to prove allegation of forgery shifts on the defendarit. From the above discussion it is seen that the defendant has failed to show any suspicious circumstance which could create a cloud over due execution of the aforesaid last 'Will' (Ext. 1). On the other hand the petitioner has been able to prove that requirement of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, with regards to execution of unprivileged will were fully satisfied. As such the issue number (i) is answered in favor of the petitioner in the affirmative.” 48. While examining the findings and conclusions reached by the learned trial Court with regard to the issue No. 1 so framed; the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, herein, that the learned trial Court had after discarding the evidence of the attesting witnesses who had deposed as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, respectively, had proceeded to record conclusions by invoking the enabling provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is being examined. The provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution. If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.” 49. The provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution. If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.” 49. It has been settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is in the form of a safeguard to the mandatory provisions of Section 68 to cater to a situation where it is not possible to prove the execution of a will, by calling the attesting witnesses, though alive, i.e. if the witnesses, either, deny, or, do not recollect the execution of the will. It was also held laid down that it is only in these contingencies by the aid of Section 71 of the Act of 1872, other evidences can be furnished. 50. In this connection, with regard to the enabling provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chand Sharma (supra), had held as follows: “ 51. Janki Narayan Bhoir witnessed a fact situation where one of the attesting witnesses of the will, though both were alive at the relevant time. was produced to prove the execution thereof. The scribe of the document was also examined. The attesting witness deposed that he had not seen the other witness present at the time of execution of the will and further he did not remember as to whether he along with the latter were present either when the testator had put his signature on the will or that he had identified the person who had put the thumb impression on the document. The issue raised before this Court was that the evidence of the said attesting witness had failed to establish the attestation of the will by the other attesting witness who though available had not been examined and thus the will was not proved. The contrary plea was that though Section 63 of the Act required attestation of a will by at least two witnesses, it could be proved by examining one attesting witness as per Section 68 of the 1872 Act and by furnishing other evidence as per Section 71 thereof. 52. The contrary plea was that though Section 63 of the Act required attestation of a will by at least two witnesses, it could be proved by examining one attesting witness as per Section 68 of the 1872 Act and by furnishing other evidence as per Section 71 thereof. 52. While dwelling on the respective prescripts of Section 63 of the Act and Sections 68 and 71 of the 1872 Act vis-à-vis a document required by law to be compulsorily attested, it was held in Janki Narayan Bhoir case that if an attesting witness is alive and is capable of giving evidence and is subject to the process of the court, he/she has to be necessarily examined before such document can be used in evidence. It was expounded that on a combined reading of Section 63 of the Act and Section 68 of the 1872 Act, it was apparent that mere proof of signature of the testator on the will was not sufficient and that attestation thereof was also to be proved as required by Section 63(c) of the Act. It was, however, emphasised that though Section 68 of the 1872 Act permits proof of a document compulsorily required to be attested by one attesting witness, he/she should be in a position to prove the execution thereof and if it is a will, in terms of Section 63(c) of the Act viz. attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner as contemplated therein. It was exposited that if the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not prove the requirement of the attestation of the will by the other witness, his testimony would fall short of attestation of the will by at least two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the will does not merely mean signing of it by the testator but connotes fulfilling the proof of all formalities required under Section 63 of the Act. It was held that where the attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section 68 of the 1872 Act fails to prove the due execution of the will, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. 53. It was held that where the attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section 68 of the 1872 Act fails to prove the due execution of the will, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. 53. Qua Section 71 of the 1872 Act, it was held in Janki Narayan Bhoir case to be in the form of a safeguard to the mandatory provision of Section 68 to cater to a situation where it is not possible to prove the execution of the will by calling the attesting witnesses though alive ie. if the witnesses either deny or do not recollect the execution of the will. Only in these contingencies by the aid of Section 71, other evidence can be furnished. It was further clarified that Section 71 of the 1872 Act would have no application to a case where one attesting witness who alone had been summoned fails to prove the execution of the will and the other attesting witness though available to prove the execution of the same, for reasons best known, is not summoned before the court. 54. This Court in Janki Narayan Bhoir case underlined that Section 71 of the 1872 Act was meant to lend assistance and come to the rescue of a party who had done his best, but driven to a state of helplessness and impossibility and cannot be let down without any other opportunity of proving the due execution of the document by other evidence. That, however, Section 71 cannot be invoked so as to absolve the party of his obligation under Section 68 read with Section 63 of the Act and to liberally allow him, at his will or choice, to make available or not, necessary witness otherwise available and amenable to jurisdiction of the court, was highlighted in emphatic terms. That no premium upon such omission or lapse so as to enable him to give a go- by to the mandates of law relating to proof of execution of a will, as contemplated by these statutory provisions, was precisely underlined. In the facts and circumstances of that case, as the second attesting witness though available had not been summoned, the benefit of Section 71 of the 1872 Act was not extended. In the facts and circumstances of that case, as the second attesting witness though available had not been summoned, the benefit of Section 71 of the 1872 Act was not extended. The will was thus held to be not proved for the failure of the attesting witness so produced, to testify as per the ordainment of Section 63(c) of the Act. 55. In M.B. Ramesh, one Smt Nagammanni had executed a will. One of the attesting witnesses C. Basavaraje Urs, in his evidence, stated about the presence of the other witness (naming him), the testatrix, himself and one Sampat Iyengar to be present when the will was written. He deposed further that one Mr Narayanmurti was the scribe. This witness proved that the will was signed by Smt Nagammanni and that he had signed the document too in her presence. On a consideration of the totality of the circumstances emerging from the narration of the attesting witness, this Court held that the omission on the part of this witness to specifically state about the signature of the other witness on the will in presence of the testatrix did amount to his failure to recollect the said fact and thus the deficiency could permissibly be replenished by the aid of Section 71 of the 1872 Act. In no uncertain terms, this Court did hold that the issue of validity of the will was to be considered in context of the attendant singular facts.” 51. Having noticed the purport of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, noticed hereinabove, to the facts of the present case, the denial by the attesting witnesses i.e. DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, of having attested the will, dated 31.10.2006, is held to have brought the matter within the purview of Section 71 of the Act of 1872. It is to be examined as to the evidences available on record that would establish the due execution of the will, dated 30.10.2006. The only evidence now available on record is that adduced by DW-4. 52. The evidence of DW-4 has already been quoted above. A perusal of the same, would go to reveal that DW-4 had not deposed that the testatrix had affixed her signature in the will, dated 30.10.2006, in his presence, and further that the attesting witnesses had also not affixed their signatures in his presence. 52. The evidence of DW-4 has already been quoted above. A perusal of the same, would go to reveal that DW-4 had not deposed that the testatrix had affixed her signature in the will, dated 30.10.2006, in his presence, and further that the attesting witnesses had also not affixed their signatures in his presence. In the will, dated 31.10.2006, the DW-4 had made an endorsement, as under: “ Executed before me today the 31 st October, 2006, in presence of witness." 53. However, during the cross-examination of DW-4, he had contradicted the endorsement so made by him, in the will, dated 31.10.2006, and had deposed that the signatures of the testatrix as well as the attesting witnesses, were not made in his presence. He had further deposed as follows: “ Also I know a WILL was executed by One Opet Dai mother of Obit Dai before me”. 54. The said statement of DW-4 has to be understood in the context, it was so made. A conjoint reading of the evidence of DW-4, would go to demonstrate that the execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006, as well as its registration was so made on the sole respondent, herein, bringing the will, in question, to the office of DW-4 and also making a statement to the effect that the attesting witnesses had put their respective signatures on the will before the same was brought to him. The said statement does not support the contention of the sole respondent, herein, of the valid execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006. It is apparent from the deposition of DW-4 that the attesting witnesses as well as the testatrix had not affixed their respective signatures in his presence. Accordingly, the finding of the learned trial Court that the DW-4 had contended that the will, dated 30.10.2006, was executed by the testatrix before him, is clearly perverse. Accordingly, the contention of the sole respondent that the deficiency, if any, in the manner in proving the execution of the will, dated 30.10.2006, was replenished with the aid of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would not mandate an acceptance. It is stated that the provisions of Section 71, has to be necessarily accorded a restrict interpretation. Accordingly, the contention of the sole respondent that the deficiency, if any, in the manner in proving the execution of the will, dated 30.10.2006, was replenished with the aid of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would not mandate an acceptance. It is stated that the provisions of Section 71, has to be necessarily accorded a restrict interpretation. In the event of denial by the attesting witnesses of having attested the will, dated 31.10.2006, as occasioning in the present case of the execution of will; such execution was required to be proved by the sole respondent, herein, by way of adducing other evidences, which, in the considered view of this Court, the sole respondent, herein, has miserably failed. 55. At this stage, the contention of the sole respondent, herein, that the execution of will, dated 31.10.2006, can be inferred from the statements made by DW-3 viz. Shri Obang Mengu from the endorsements as made by him in the verification to the application submitted by the sole respondent, herein, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 56. A perusal of the cross-examination of DW-3, does not reflect that the said aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of DW-3 by the sole respondent and a response thereof, elicited from him. The DW-3 was not confronted with the said issue during his cross-examination by the sole respondent. Accordingly, the said projection as made by the sole respondent, herein, cannot be said to have been established in the trial. In view thereof, on the said count also, it cannot be said that will, dated 31.10.2006, was demonstrated to have been validly executed. 57. In view of the above discussions and conclusions reached by this Court; the decisions relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the parties in view of the facts emanating in the present proceeding, are not further discussed. However, the same was duly considered for arriving at the above conclusions. 58. In view of the above position; this Court is of the considered view that the sole respondent has miserably failed to demonstrate that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was so executed in the manner as contemplated under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, the same was duly considered for arriving at the above conclusions. 58. In view of the above position; this Court is of the considered view that the sole respondent has miserably failed to demonstrate that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was so executed in the manner as contemplated under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Further, the doubt created with regard to the due and proper execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006, was not dispelled by the respondent, herein, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. 59. The findings recorded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, having already been concluded to be perverse; the impugned judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, would not be sustainable. 60. In view of the above discussions; the judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, stands set aside. 61. The present appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.