The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable on the facts of the case. In Janki Narayan Bhoir's case (supra) the only witness who was examined had not supported the Will but the High Court treated the scribe (who had not attested the Will) as attesting witness and in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that scribe cannot be teated as attesting witness. In Jamuna Devi's case (supra), this Court relied upon Janki Narayan Bhoir's case(supra) but noticed the judgments of this Court in Lila Dhar v. Smt. Badho and another 1994(1) PLR 525, Kartar Kaur v. Bhagwan Kaur , 1993(1) RRR 247 (P&H), Mohinder Kaur v. Harbajan Singh , 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 134 (P&H), Lal Singh and another v. Bant Singh and others , AIR 1983 Punjab and Haryana 384 and Sita Ram v. R.D. Gupta and others, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 83, wherein it is held that the Sub Registrar or the scribe of the Will can be treated as a witness to prove the due execution of the Will, if there is no other suspicious circumstance but did not rely upon these judgments observing that there was a suspicious circumstance. In N. Kamalam's case (supra), the scribe had identified himself as scribe of the document.
