1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.389 OF 2010. (SMT. VIDYA DNYANESHWAR BHIVGADE....VS.. SMT. SUMAN RAJARAM HATWAR & ORS.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.U. Nemade, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff Vidya had previously filed an application before the Court at Digras for grant of succession certificate in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule A on the death of her husband Dnyaneshwar. The appellant, Vidya claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Dnyaneshwar. 3. The respondent to this appeal also claimed to be the legal heir of deceased Dnyaneshwar as respondent No.1 Suman claimed to be his legally wedded wife and the other two respondents claimed to be his sons and daughter. They had filed an application before the Court at Amravati for grant of succession certificate. 4. It is necessary to note that a succession certificate was granted in favour of appellant Vidya by the Court at Digras and a succession certificate was granted in favour fo the respondents Suman and her children by the Court at Amravati. 2 5. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant for seeking declaration that she was the sole legal heir of deceased Dnyaneshwar. At the same time M.J.C. No.13 of 2007 was filed by respondent Suman and her children for cancellation of succession certificate granted in favour of the appellant Vidya by the Court at Digras on 13.08.2007. 6. The trial and the first appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that appellant Vidya was not the legally wedded wife of Dnyaneshwar and was therefore, not legal heir of Dnyaneshwar. The Courts held that respondent Suman and her sons and daugther were the legal heirs of deceased Dnyaneshwar. According to the Courts, it was clear from the oral and documentary evidence on record that Suman was the legally wedded wife of Dnyaneshwar and Dnyaneshwar could not have legally married wife Vidya during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent Suman. The Courts weighed the evidence tendered on behalf of both the parties to hold that appellant Vidya was not the legal heir of Dnyaneshwar. 7. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgment reported in 2008(3) Mh.L.J. 1 (Vidyadhari & oth Vs. Sukhrana Bai & oth) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as, admittedly, Vidya had no issues from Dnyaneshwar and hence, only the first wife i.e. Suman and her children were the legal heirs of Dnyaneshwar. The Courts were justified in cancelling the grant of succession certificate in favour of the plaintiff Vidya by the Court at Digras on 13.08.2007 as, according to the Courts, and rightly so, 3 appellant Vidya had obtained the succession certificate on 13.08.2007 without disclosing the fact about the marriage of Dnyaneshwar with Suman. 8. Since no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.