1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIION SECOND APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2008 Shri Navalsing Narsingrao Shitole (Deshmukh) ... Appellant. Vs. Smt. Sushilabai Jaysingrao Shitole & Anr. ... Respoondents. Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. P.G.Chavan, advocate, for the appellant. Mr. V.P.Sawant, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 15th September,2008 DATE: 15th September,2008 DATE: 15th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is the Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiff. Deceased Jaisingrao husband of the 2 defendant NO.1 and deceased Narsingrao, who was father of the plaintiff, were brothers inter se. According to the plaintiff, Jaysingrao had executed a Will on 19.1.1996 and bequeathed his property to the plaintiff. The said Jaisingrao died on 23.3.2004. After his death, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title over the property of Jaisingrao on the basis of the Wil. He pleaded that after the death of Jaisingrao, respondent NO.1 was claiming that the property was bequeathed to her under another Will and defendant NO.1 had made a gift of that property to defendant NO.2, who is daughter-in-law of the brother of the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, the alleged Will dated 6.11.98 in favour of the defendant No.1 is fabricated document and the defendant No.1 does not get anything under the original Will and in the result, defendant No.2 also does not get anything in the property on the basis of the gift deed executed by defendant No.1. The defendants contested the suit contending that Jaisingrao had executed the Will dated 6.11.98. That was his last Will and by that Will he had bequeathed all his property to his wife defendant no.1. The couple did not have any child. After death of Jaisingrao, on the basis of the sale deed, defendant No.1 had become the exclusive owner of the property and she made a gift of the property in favour of the 3 defendant No.2 on 2.5.2000. The Will dated 6.11.98 and gift deed dated 2.5.2000 are the registered documents. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the Will dated 19.1.1996 and that the defendants have proved the Will dated 6.11.98, which was the last Will of the deceased. Against dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.237 of 2004. The appellate Court rejected the contention of the plaintiff that the deceased had bequeathed the property to him on 19.1.1996 under the Will. The appellate Court agreed with the trial court that the deceased had made a Will on 6.11.98 in favour of the wife and that was the last Will. The contention of the plaintiff that deceased was not physically and mentally fit for executing the Will on 6.11.1998 was rejected. Thus, the appeal filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. Hence the plaintif has preferred this Second Appeal. 3. There is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below that deceased Jaisingrao had bequeathed his property to his wife defendant no.1, by Will dated 6.11.98. That Will was a registered document. Executing will in favour of widow cannot be suspicious circumstance, particularly when they did not have any 4 child. 4. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that the witnesses, who were associated with the execution of the alleged Will dated 6.11.98, are interested for and on behalf of the defendant No.2, who got the property under the Will dated 2.5.2000. In fact, execution of the gift deed is not in dispute. In the given circumstances, the concurrent finding given by the Courts below cannot be called to be perverse. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 5. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, C.A. No.100 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)