He then drew the attention of this Court to the deposition of P.W.2, the daughter of one of the attesting witness Ayyapillai who is no more, who has deposed that the signature found in the Will is the signature of her father (Ayyapillai) and is in his handwriting. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since the plaintiffs have not proved the signature of the testator, namely, Muthupillai, as per the mandatory requirement under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as P.W.2 has only commented upon the signature of one of the attesting witness and not the testator, the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the twin conditions of proving the signature of one of the attesting witness as well as that of the testator, namely, Muthupillai. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiffs have not proved the Will and not entitled for the declaratory relief that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that erroneously the Courts below have applied Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with presumption as to documents 30 or more years old and Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, which enables the Court to presume that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed, as the disputed Will is a registered Will. He would submit that neither Section 90 nor Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act applies to a Will. He would also submit that mandatorily, the plaintiffs will have to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act by proving
