: 1 : Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.948 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.948 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.948 OF 2007 Hira Shankar Bhoir & Anr. ...Appellants V/s. Hira Pandurang Patil & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.M.A. Patil, Advocate, for the Appellants. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 17TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 17TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 17TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. The appellants are the unsuccessful defendants where a decree for partition has been passed against them which has been confirmed by the District Court. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants is that the appellants had proved the Will dated 27th September, 1996 executed by late Dharma Patil. He submitted that the evidence of Motiram Mhatre and Sadanand Gund proved execution of the Will. 2. I have perused the notes of evidence of both the witnesses. The witness Motiram does not depose that the testator signed the Will in his presence. He has also not deposed that he received a personal : 2 : acknowledgment of the signature of the testator from the testator himself. The witness Sadanand, has not stated that he is an attesting witness. He stated that he was present at the time of the registration of the alleged Will. 3. In view of this factual position, the Courts below were right in holding that the appellants have not proved the Will. No substantial question of law arises. Hence Second Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application is dismissed accordingly. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]