SINGH, J. - (1.) THE opposite party No. 1 Smt. Godawari wife of Girdhari Lal filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') for grant of probate. It was stated that her mother Smt. Chhati Bai executed a Will only in her favour though she had three more sisters namely Smt. Devi wife of Mool Chand; Smt. Bhagwani wife of Righumal and Smt. Meera alias Smt. Gopi wife of Ram Chand Tekchandani. This Will relates to National Savings Certificates, Unit Trust of India Certificates and the Fixed deposits in the banks, made by Smt. Chhati Bai.
(2.) THE Will was drafted in English but the name of the scribe was not mentioned. THE two attesting witnesses were Purshottam Das son of Ghanshyam Das Sunder Israni. Smt. Godawari's other sister appellants No. 1 and 3 and the opposite party No. 2 came forward with the case that Smt. Chhati Bai had executed a registered Will on 5. 07. 1991 bequeahing her entire assets among all the four daughters in equal shares. The will relied upon by Smt. Godawari was forged one. The learned Additional Distt. Judge allowed the application and the probate was granted in favour of the opposite party No. 1 (Smt. Godawari ). This appeal is directed against that order. Heard Mr. G. L. Pareek, on behalf of the appellants and Mr. P. D. Singh, on behalf of the opposite party No. l. Admittedly, Chhati Bai had four daughters; (1) Smt. Devi Bai, (2) Gopu, (3) Smt. Bhagwani and (4) Smt. Godawari. The Will relied upon by Smt. Godawari did not mention any fact as to why the entire property was being given to her alone, dis-entitling the other daughters from getting their share in the property. Moreover, the Will has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of law of Sec. 63 of the Act which reads as follows: - "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 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 form of attestation shall be necessary. "
(3.) IN the instant case there is no evidence on record to show that Purshottam Das and Sunder Israni the two attesting witnesses have seen the testator signing the Will and they themselves signed the same in his presence. It was not sufficient for them to have stated only this much that they have seen the testator signing the Will. IN addition to that it was the mandatory requirement of the law to make statement that they themselves signed the Will as attestinhg witnesses in the presence of the testator. Supreme Court in the case reported in Girija Dutt V. Gangotri Dutt (1), while considering a similar question held that in order to prove the due attestation of the Will proponder will have to prove that the two attesting withnesses saw the testator signing the Will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the testator". Applying the ratio in the instant case, while examining the statement made by the two attesting witnesses Purshottam Das and Sunder Israni it was seen that nowhere it has been said that they themselves have signed the Will in the presence of the testator. So the necessary requirement of Section 63 of the Act has not been complied with. ;