1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1317 OF 2009 Rukhmini Shivaji Patil through Power of Attorney Shivaji Ganpati Patil .. Appellant Vs. Suresh Baban Patil & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R. S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Deepak R. More, Advocate i/b Mr. Rakesh S. Patil and Mr. Amit Palkar Advocates for the Respondents. CORAM : R. S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 13th January, 2010. P.C. This Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs impugning a common judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, dismissing the suit. Prayers of the plaintiffs in the suit were for partition of joint family property and for declaration that the sale deed dated 30.09.1988 in favour of the respondent was void. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that, 70 % of the suit property was conveyed to him by his grand-father Chandru under the sale deed dated 30.09.1988 which was registered sale 2 deed, whereas balance 30% was given to him under a will dated 14.01.1990. The plaintiff No.1 is the widow and the plaintiff No.2 is the younger daughter of deceased Chandru. The recitals in the will indicate that the plaintiff No.1 had left deceased Chandru in his old age. Thus, according to the Will that is the reason why the properties were bequeathed to his grand son Suresh. Both the documents have been accepted as genuine by both the lower Courts. It was sought to be contended that the scribe has stated in his evidence that the testator had not mentioned to him about his wife. It was pointed out that in the Will it was mentioned that wife has left him in his old age. In my view, this alone cannot be a ground for discarding his evidence. In any case the attesting witness has been examined. It was sought to be contended that attesting witness could not tell the survey numbers and other details of the land. In my view, this cannot be a ground for discarding his evidence. Examining the attesting witness is examined to prove that the testator had signed the Will. It was contended that as regards the impugned sale deed the passing of consideration amount was not proved. The lower Appellate Court has held that, dispute relating to non receipt of consideration amount by Chandru was not raised prior to the filing of the suit. It 3 was contended that this point was also raised in the 1988 suit. Even if it is assumed that it was raised, the plaintiff cannot succeed on this point merely by raising an issue for non receipt of consideration amount but must prove the same. In this background, in my view, no substantial questions of law are arise in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)