argued by the learned counsel that the finding entered by the learned Munsiff in O.S.Nos.179 of 2005 and 308 of 2005 as to the due execution of Ext.A1 is not correct. The learned counsel has invited my attention to Ext.A2, copy of deposition of Narayanan as DW1 in O.S.No.752 of 1999 to contend that the 2nd attestor in Ext.A1 had not even signed that Will and that at any rate, the suit property in O.S.No.179 of 2005 is not included in the said Will and allotted to the 1st respondent. The learned counsel also argued that the evidence of PW2 in O.S.Nos.179 of 2005 and 308 of 2005 as to the execution of Ext.A1 should not have been accepted since he is the driver of the late Narayanan and had taken a leading role in getting the Ext.A1 executed. According to the learned counsel, the evidence given by DHW No.3, claimed to be the first attesting witness in Ext.A1 in the course of the enquiry in E.P.No.167 of 2003 would show that the late Narayanan had not subscribed his signature to Ext.A1. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh (AIR 1955 SC 346), M.S.Thanigachala Pillai v. Rukmani Ammal and others (AIR 1989 Madras 99), Illyas and others v. Badshah alias Kamla (AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 334) and K.M.varghese v. K.M.Oommen (AIR 1994 Kerala 85) (paragraph 45) to contend that there is no reliable evidence in proof of due execution of Ext.A1.
