IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.92 of 1998 Date of decision : April 6, 2009 Pyare Lal …Appellant. Versus Achhar Ram and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2nd September, 1997, of learned District Judge, whereby dismissing appellant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12th February, 1988 of the Sub Judge 1st Class, the learned District Judge has affirmed the aforesaid judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge. 2. Appeal was admitted on 14th May, 1998. Though the order does not specifically record on what substantial question of law the appeal had been admitted, I find on record the following substantial questions of law, which were formulated by the appellant and submitted alongwith the memorandum of appeal: “1. Whether a Will can be said to be validly executed, if both the marginal witnesses deny its execution, but, admit their signatures on the said Will? 2. Whether the evidence by Sub-Registrar in a case in which validity of a Will is disputed can be read in substitution to the evidence by marginal witness to prove the contents and validity of the Will?” Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Late Smt. Nikki Devi, hereinafter called deceased plaintiff and now represented by appellant Pyare Lal, filed a suit for declaration that she was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the estate of her deceased husband Gokal Ram, on the basis of a Will executed by him on 30th May, 1979, and that the mutation attested by the revenue authorities in favour of the defendants- respondents, thereby showing them to have inherited the estate of deceased Gokal, in its entirety, to her exclusion, was illegal, void and not binding upon her. By way of further relief, she prayed for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from causing any interference in her right to enjoy the estate of her late husband Gokal Ram. 4. Suit was contested by the respondents-defendants and deceased Kesho Devi, now represented by the other two respondents, who was stated to be the co-widow of deceased plaintiff Nikki Devi. Defendants-respondents pleaded that after the execution of the Will, dated 30th May, 1979, deceased Gokal had executed another Will on 30th September, 1981, thereby bequeathing his entire property, both moveable and immoveable, in their favour and so the mutation had rightly been entered and attested in their favour. 5. Various issues were framed by the trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, and ultimately it was concluded, on the basis of the evidence on record, that Will relied upon by the deceased plaintiff, stood superseded by the subsequent Will …3… dated 30th September, 1981, executed by deceased Gokal in favour of the respondents-defendants, thereby completely excluding the deceased plaintiff from bequest. Appeal filed by the appellant in the Court of District Judge stands dismissed. 6. I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The two substantial questions of law are interlinked and interconnected. So, I proceed to take up and determine the same together. 8. Submission made on behalf of the appellant is that when the two attesting witnesses very categorically testified that deceased Gokal had neither executed the Will, dated 30th September, 1981, Ex. DW-2/A, in their presence nor had he acknowledged to them that it had been executed by him, there is no attestation, within the meaning of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 9. Of course, the two attesting witnesses of the Will, namely DW-3 Beli Ram and DW-4 Sada Ram, denied that the Will was executed by deceased Gokal in their presence or that he acknowledged its execution when they put their signatures on it, but they did admit that the Will was signed by them. Respondents-defendants examined one more witness, namely DW-5 Sunder Singh, the then Sub Registrar of documents, who had registered the Will. The witness stated that the Will was presented to him, in his office, as Sub Registrar, by Gokal, who had been identified by Beli Ram and Sada Ram, and that he read over and explained the contents of the Will to Gokal and after …4… admitting the same to be correct he put his signature below the endorsement of attestation and thereafter the two identifying witnesses, namely DW-3 Beli Ram and DW-4 Sada Ram, also put their signatures on the Will. 10. Interpreting the provision of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana and others v. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others (AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4362), vide Para-24, has held that the signatures of the Registering Officer and identifying witnesses affixed to the endorsement of registration, are sufficient attestation of the Will. It has further been held that the endorsement of the Sub Registrar that the executant has acknowledged before him the execution of the Will also amounts to attestation. 11. In the present case, the testimony of DW-5 Sunder Singh, Sub Registrar, categorically proves that deceased Gokal had executed the Will and had put his signature in his presence and thereafter the abovenamed two attesting witnesses had also put their signatures. This according to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, amounts to due and valid attestation. 12. In view of the abovestated position, both the substantial questions of law, formulated in this case, are answered against the appellant and consequently the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of. April 6, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J