IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2008 MR. LUIS OSCAR DE SOUZA AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus UNIT TRUST OF INDIA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Agha, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Mordekar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date:- 26th September, 2008 P.C. This Second appeal takes exception to the concurrent findings by both the Courts below that the Will on which the plaintiff relied was not confirmed in terms of Articles 1913 and 1914 of the Civil Code. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit and the plaintiff's appeal also came to be dismissed. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge and the following substantial questions of law are stated to arise : (i) Whether there is a case of misconstruction of the document of the Will dated 21.3.1994 ? (ii) Whether there is mis-interpretation of Article 1913 of the Civil Code ? (iii) Whether there is mis-interpretation of Article 1914 of the Civil Code? (iv) Whether the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction in taking for consideration the point whether the Will was conditional and thereby dismissing the appeal ? (v) Whether the Appellate Court mis-interpreted the provisions relating to the production of evidence in the matter of public documents ? 2. I have heard the Senior Counsel for the Appellant Shri M. S. Usgaonkar. The question of construction of documents is a question of fact unless it is shown that the law required it to be interpreted in a particular fashion. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the Will has to be treated as a public document and therefore all the recitals therein do not require proof and may not be disputed at this stage since the Trial Judge had cast the burden in respect of the Will on the defendants only. All the same, both the Trial Judge and the learned Judge of the First Appellate Code came to the conclusion that the Will in question was not read in a loud voice as required by Article 1914. on the interpretation of the following words: "Thus she stated and concluded her last Will in the presence of witnesses, Alfredo Jose Eleuterio Godinho de Mira, divorce, retired, resident of Caranzalem, Ilhas. Leslie D'cunha, unmarried, bachelor, retired, resident of Mapusa, Bardez, Siurama Visvonta Chodancar, married, major, in service, resident of Colvale, Bardez, who are going to sign this Will alongwith the Testatrix, with me the said Notary Ex-Officio, after being read out by me in a loud voice, in the simultaneous presence of all concerned." (emphasis supplied) 3. Both the Courts held that the witnesses and the Notary were to sign the Will after it was to be read out in a loud voice. The Will in question does not indicate that it was so read in a loud voice. Hence a factual finding was recorded that it was not read in a loud voice. This does not give rise to any substantial questions of law. 4. There is no mis-interpretation of Articles 1913 and 1914 of the Code since both the Trial Judge as well as the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court do not seem to have misunderstood the provisions of these Articles. As gathered from the Judgment, Article 1913 required that the Notary as well as the witnesses should know the testator or be able in any manner, to certify about his identity and Article 1914 as already encountered require that the Will has to be read in a loud voice. Therefore, the conclusions which have been drawn by the Trial Court and the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court are purely on facts as to whether the witnesses knew the testator and whether the Will was read in a loud voice before it was attested. In either case, the Will would go and therefore, the result would be dismissal of the suit. The appeal therefore, does not disclose any substantial questions of law warranting its admission. It is dismissed. R. C. CHAVAN, J. lh/.