1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.146 of 2010. Mohd.Baig s/o Hatam Baig and ors. ..vs.. Vazir Shah Kadir Shah and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.A.R.Patil Adv. for the appellants. Mr.M.A.Husai Adv. for the respondents. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 8th April, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that they are the heirs of one Manwar Baig, who died on 14/1/1991 and they were entitled to the property left behind by him. It was their contention that the defendants were disturbing their possession and therefore, they required to file suit for claiming possession of the property left behind by Manwar Baig. The defendants claimed that Manwar Baig left behind him a Will and on the basis of the Will 2 they have become the owner of the suit property. After having gone through the judgment of the courts below, it is apparent that Manwar Baig had executed a Will on 27/9/1970 and it is, therefore, also apparent that he did not die intestate. The courts below have held that as per Will executed by Manwar Baig the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share and defendants were entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties. I do not find that the courts below have fallen in error in deciding the issues as were raised. The property must, therefore, go according to the Will. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute