to note that deceased Narayanan Nair had only 35 cents of property. Even if we assume that it is full of coconut trees, no prudent man will venture to go to Kalpetta from Kodiyeri for selling coconuts, since it could have been sold in and around Thalassery. Story of acquaintance said to have been developed between DW2 and Narayanan Nair appears to be an artificial one. Even according to DW2, the first executing witness to Ext.B2 Will had introduced him to deceased Narayanan Nair. Court below rightly found that there was no material produced to show that the first executing witness in Ext.B2 was dead at the time of examination. Court below pointed out that the witness could have been summoned through court and if he was dead the same should have been returned with an endorsement that addressee was dead. Otherwise a death certificate could have been produced. True, there is no rule that both the witnesses should be examined for proving a Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But, it is a well settled proposition in law, covered by precedents on the point, that if the testimony of an attesting witness does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court, then certainly the court can insist examination of both the witnesses. In this case, it was not possible for the trial court to come to a definite conclusion that the first attesting witness in Ext.B2 was no more. Testimony of DW2 did not inspire confidence in the mind of the trial court and that aspect cannot be questioned since that view is reasonable and probable.
