1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 205/2008 (Prabhabai Gendlal Suryawanshi VERSUS Purushottam Ramchandra Bhatere & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri S.G. Karmarkar, counsel for the appellant. Mrs. Mahashabde, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 26, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit property which she had acquired in pursuance of a will executed by her brother Navnath on 16.02.1991. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 Purushottam was her brother and also the brother of Navnath. Defendant no.2 was the son of Purushottam. Since the defendants were also claiming ownership of the suit property, the suit was filed for declaration that she was the owner of the suit property. It was also pleaded that the alleged will executed by Navnath in favour of defendant no.2 Dilip was not legal and proper, and hence, the defendant no.2 could not claim ownership to the suit property on the basis of the will dated 18.02.1991. 2 The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that Navnath had executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiff on 16.02.1991. It was pleaded by the defendant that Navnath died on 20.02.1991 and just prior to his death, a will was executed in favour of defendant no.2 by Navnath on 18.02.1991. The defendants sought the dismissal of the suit. Since both the parties had based their claims on the basis of will allegedly executed on 16.02.1991 and 18.02.1991, the trial Court framed the issues pertaining to the proof of the will dated 16.02.1991 and 18.02.1991. On an appreciation of the material evidence on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the will dated 16.02.1991. According to the trial Court, the will dated 16.02.1991 was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. The Court further held that the defendants had succeeded in proving the will dated 18.02.1991 which was the last will of Navnath. The Courts held that the defendants had succeeded in proving that the will was validly executed by Navnath in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Consequently, the Court held that the defendant no.2 proved that he was the absolute owner of 3 the suit property in view of the will dated 18.02.1991. The findings of the trial Court are upheld by the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the plaintiff. I have perused the judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The Courts have concurrently held that the defendants have succeeded in proving the last will of Navnath which was executed on 18.02.1991. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE