during the life time of their father they were given some properties. Merely because their father executed a settlement deed Ex.B-5 on 1212-1973 in favour of the defendant, it cannot be taken as a cause for their grand father to change his mind and execute the disputed will Ex.A-8. Evidently, at the time when the said will Ex.A-8 was executed, PWs.1 and 2 are not present and it was said to have handed over to them in 1982. If such is the case, the plaintiffs would not have kept quite and mutation would not have taken place in the name of their father as owner of the properties subsequently. In fact the will itself is said to have been handed over by the grand-father. Therefore, if the grand-father of the plaintiffs was so conscious that a will should be executed to protect the interest of the plaintiffs, he would have not have kept it in secrecy and would have registered it. There cannot be any secrecy in the said will when the plaintiffs themselves claim that it was attested by their father Viswanadha Raju. Therefore, in such circumstances, the failure to register the Ex.A-8 will is against the conduct of the executant of the will and the reasons given by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. Further more, even during the life time of the father of the plaintiffs, they never questioned about his rights in item Nos.1, 2 and 5 of the suit schedule property. The attester on will is examined as PW.3 and his evidence does not clearly disclose a close acquaintance with Suryanarayana Raju and it also does not show as to the execution of the will to the dictation of Suryanarayna Raju. He is not even the native of the place to which the parties belongs. Even the evidence of PW.3 goes to show that he never met Suryanarayana Raju prior to the date of the alleged will. He is also not able to say the family particulars of the Suryanarayana Raju. There is no special reason for him to be sent by Suryanarayana Raju for attesting the will Ex.A-8. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 appears to be artificial and to remove the suspicions about the genuineness of the will, the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs is not sufficient since PWs.1 and 2 are not present at the time of alleged will and as the evidence of PW.3 is not