1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.647/2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.8/2005 (D) Prabhakar s/o Namdeorao Fuse and others ...Versus... Sudhakar s/o Namdeorao Fuse and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri S.R. Deshpande, Adv. for applicants] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 18.08.2011. This review application has been filed by the original defendant, appellant in Second Appeal No.8/2005, which was dismissed on 14.3.2011 by this Court, on the ground that while deciding the second appeal, this Court did not deal with the second contention, namely about the Will(Exh.115). In support of the Will (Exh.115), the learned Counsel for the review applicant argued that the appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the Will contrary to the settled principles in relation to the instrument, namely the Will. According to him, there was no suspicious circumstances which would invalidate the Will as has been done by the lower appellate Court. He argued that the trial Court was right in 2 accepting the Will as genuine and there is no dispute about the proof of the Will in Court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the review applicant. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. In so far as the Will (Exh.115) is concerned, there is detailed discussion made by the lower appellate Court in paragraph no.15 of the judgment, pointing out various suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will (Exh.115). Several circumstances have been quoted by the lower appellate Court, but then it is seen that the review applicant got the Will registered after period of 43 years when the brothers of the review applicant filed the suit in question. This Court has held in the judgment under review that the claim made by the review applicant that he was receiving Rs.20/- per month towards scholarship when he was studying 12th standard and he saved money out of that and purchased the suit property was nothing but a figment of imagination. This Court has confirmed the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that it was improbable that the review applicant would have saved such amount of money from scholarship of Rs.20/- which he was receiving to purchase a house property. Thus, in view of the circumstances pointed out by the lower appellate Court coupled with the claim made by the review applicant stated above, which has not been 3 accepted by the lower appellate Court and this Court, I do not find any merit in the present review application. The review application is, therefore, dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw