1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEALNO.311 OF 2010 [VIJAY SHANKARRAO BOKADE NAGPUR & 2 OTHERS ..VS.. SMT. GEETA KAILASH KAHAR, NAGPUR. Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J. DATED : 14t h JULY, 2010 . Heard Shri Shareef, the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiffs for a declaration that a will allegedly executed by their father Bhagwandas in favour of the defendants on 23.10.1991 was illegal, null and void. The pPlaintiffs pleaded that they were the widow and daughter of Bhagwandas and Bhagwandas was the owner of the suit property. They pleaded in the plaint that they inherited the property on the death of Bhagwandas on 11.10.1992. When the plaintiffs went to mutate their names in the revenue record, they realized that the defendants had also applied for mutating their names in the revenue record on the basis of the will dated 23.10.1991. In such circumstances, the suit for declaration was filed. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and 2 pleaded that the suit property belonged to Bhagwandas and Bhagwandas had executed a valid will in their favour on 23.10.1991. The defendants pleaded that the suit was not properly valued and therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. Both the courts, on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the will dated 23.10.1991 allegedly executed by Bhagwandas in favour of the defendants was a false and fabricated document and was liable to be declared as illegal, null and void. The courts held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their possession over the suit property. The courts held that it was apparent from the record that there was no reason for Bhagwandas to bequeath the property to the defendants / his nephews, when the plaintiffs were the widow and daughter of Bhagwandas. The trial court therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the first appellate court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. The only submission made on behalf of the appellants that the suit was not properly valued and it was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove the title to the suit property is liable to be rejected for the reason that before the first appellate court, the appellants/ defendants gave up the issue of valuation and the first appellate court has clearly 3 recorded in paragraph 42 of the judgment that the objection as regards the valuation was not pressed by the defendants during the course of arguments. It was also not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove their title over the suit property as the defendants were claiming the ownership over the suit property in pursuance of the will executed by Bhagwandas in their favour on 23.10.1991 and the plaintiffs were the Class I heirs of Bhagwands being his widow and daughter. The findings recorded by the courts are pure findings of facts and are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.