1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2008 Smt. Mathubai Bhiku Shinde ........Appellant versus Smt. Devaibai Chandar Shende since deceased through L.rs. Dattu Chandrar Shende & anr........ Respondents. Mr. V.A.Gangal i/b Ashok Gade adv. for the Appellant Mr. Milind Deshmukh adv. for the respondent 1A. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 15th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Gangal learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Deshmukh for the respondent No.1A. There is no dispute that the suit property originally belongs to one Dagadu Lokhande, who died in the year 1939. Dagadu Lokhande was survived by his widow Shevantibai, who also died in the year 1993. There is also no dispute that Shevantibai survived by two daughters namely Mathubai and Devaibai. Shevantibai executed her last will on 30-1-1974 bequeathing her entire property in favour of appellant. Therefore she filed regular civil 2 suit no. 222/94 for declaration that she is the owner of the suit property and for injunction restraining Devaibai from interfering in her possession. Devaibai also filed regular civil suit no. 85/94 for partition and separate possession of the suit property. It was the case of Devaibai that she along with Mathubai are entitled to ½ share each in the property of their mother deceased Shevantibai. 2. The trial court after hearing both the sides, came to the conclusion that the alleged will dated 30-1-1974 which was being relied upon by Madhubai is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Therefore the same was held not proved. Consequently Devaibai's suit for partition was decreed. Mathubai's suit was partly decreed and both of them were given ½ share in the property of Shevantibai. 3. Mathubai being agrieved, challenged the common judgment of the trial court by filing an appeal being appeal no.15/97 before the District Court, Baramati. The lower appellate court was pleased to dismiss the same. Hence Mathubai preferred the present second appeal challenging the concurrent finding of the courts below that the will deed is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 4. Mr. Gangal learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Mathubai the appellant alongwith her husband was staying with Shevantibai and deceased Shevantibai was looked after by Mathubai and her husband. Devaibai was staying in a village which is 25 k.m. away from the 3 village where Shevantibai and Mathubai were staying. He further submitted that the will deed in question is registered one, and the same is proved by examining one contesting witness by name Karandikar. He also submitted that the finding of the lower courts below regarding suspicious circumstances are perverse and therefore requested to interfere in the aforesaid second appeal. 5. Mr. Deshmukh learned counsel for the respondent per contra supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the financial condition of Devaibai is not so good in as much as she owns only 18 gunthas of land and her husband is working as a labourer. He also submitted that there is no reason as to why deceased Shevantibai will exclude Devaibai from inheritance of her property. He also submitted that the surrounding circumstances, which are relied upon by the lower courts below goes to the route of the matter. Therefore there is no reason to interfere in the present second appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I do not find any merit in the second appeal. Both the lower courts below held that the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The first circumstance is that the attesting witness Karandikar has stated in examination-in-chief itself that Shevantibai expressed her desire that she wanted to effect partition of her landed property between her daughters. , and hence Karandikar took Shevantibai to the bond writer. 4 Looking into this statement, I am of the clear opinion that it was the intention of deceased Shevantibai to divide the property between her two daughters namely Mathubai and Devaibai. Secondly, Mathubai and her husband were present at the time of execution of the will and therefore the beneficiaries of will took active part in the execution of the will. Thirdly the will was to be scribed by G.K. Javenjal. The attesting witness Mr. Karandikar also stated that he took Sevantibai to the said bond writer who wrote the will and thereafter the will was registered. However in the cross examination it is stated that the son of bond writer was the scribe of the said will. Fourthly it is borne out from the evidence that the financial condition of Devaibai is very poor. She owns only 15 gunthas of land and her husband is doing labour work. If the financial condition of Devaibai is so week, then there is no reason as to why Sevantibai should exclude her from inheritance of the property. 7. Both the lower courts below after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion similar to above. The appreciation cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere in the second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. In view of the dismissal of second appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 11. Mr. Gangal learned counsel for the appellant at this 5 stage submits that earlier statusquo was granted and the same should be continued for a period of ten weeks. Mr. Deshmukh submits that period of ten weeks will be too long. In my considered view interest of justice will be served if the status quo granted earlier is continued for a period of eight weeks from today. Order accordingly. (R. V. More, J.)