1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1380 OF 2004 Shri Pramod Ratanchand Mehta ...Appellant. v. Shri Ratanchand M. Mehta ...Respondent. Mr.Vivek Salunkhe i/by Prafull B. Shah, advs. For the Appellants. Ms. Jai V. Mhaskar/Kanade, adv. For the Respondent No.1-B. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 15th September , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 One Ratanchand, father of the present appellant filed Miscellaneous Application No.265 of 1996 for probate of a will executed by his wife Ratnaprabha. The present appellant, who is son of the said Ratanchand and Ratnaprabha raised objection on the ground that the property sought to be bequeathed under the said will was not the property of his mother Ratnaprabha but belonged to partnership firm. According to him, house property was purchased in her name by making payment from the account of Nashik Industrial Engineering Corporation and Nashik Secrew Industries, and, therefore, she had no title over the house property and no authority to dispose off or bequeath said property. 2 Besides that, it was contended that she was not in sound mental or physical condition to execute the will. As the probate proceeding was contested, it was converted into Regular Civil Suit No.613/01 and the present appellant was treated as defendant therein. Trial Court after hearing the evidence rejected the contentions of the present appellant and held that testator was of sound and disposable state of mind at the time of execution of the will and that she had duly executed the said will in favour of the appellant Ratanchand. Accordingly, probate was granted. Defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.168/02. That appeal also came to be dismissed. 3 Thus, there is concurrent finding of the facts by both the Courts below that will was executed by the deceased Ratnaprabha and she was in sound physical and mental condition to execute the will. As far as title over the property is concerned, it is well settled position that will does not decide the title of the party and it also does not give any title to person in whose favour will is made. If testator did not have any title over the property, in spite of execution of the will, the person, in whose favour will is made, does not get any title on that property. Question of title can be independently decided as and when that question arises in the appropriate proceeding. In the probate proceeding only 3 question was whether testator was in sound and disposable state of mind and whether she had executed will in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that attesting witness Kumudini does not state that document was signed in her presence and, therefore, execution and attestation is not proved. After careful perusal of her deposition, I am not satisfied with this contention. In fact, her evidence shows that document was signed by testator in presence of herself and two more witnesses. 4 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the concurrent findings of the facts by both the Courts below, I do not find any question of law involved in the present appeal. 5 Therefore, appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is disposed off, Civil Application No.1380/04 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)