1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 104/2010 (Sakunbai Dhanraj Parteki VERSUS Shantabai Zadu Parte) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 18, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of ownership and possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the property was received by the plaintiff by a will executed by one Antibai, the maternal aunt of the plaintiff, in her favour. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and also denied the execution of will by Antibai. It was the case of the defendant-appellant that the defendant was daughter of the adopted son of Antibai and was entitled to inherit the suit property left behind by Antibai. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the execution and validity of the registered will dated 22.11.1985 making a bequest of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. 2 The Courts held that the plaintiff had acquired ownership over the property in view of the will dated 22.11.1985. The Courts held that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and the defendant tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff on 03.08.1990 and the plaintiff was entitled for the declaration sought by the plaintiff and also recovery of possession as the plaintiff was illegally dispossessed by the defendant in June, July-1991. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE