1 S.A.No.1009.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2004 Sow Sarojani @ Laxmi W/o Radhakrishnarao Tekale ... Appellant V E R S U S Sow Rajani @ Pusphabai W/o Uttamrao Wazarkar and others ... Respondents ... Mr.S.A.Dhengle,Advocate for Appellant ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] Heard. 2] The Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that father of the appellant/plaintiff during his life time made a will infavour of his nephew Subhash, respondent no.2 to the extent of 1/3rd share of the suit land. The Courts below also held concurrently that Subhash, respondent/defendant no.2, thereafter, sold his share in the suit land to the defendant/respondent no.3 Ambadas. These findings were recorded in the appellant's suit for declaration that the will of Vitthalrao proponded by Subhash was not valid document and for further 2 S.A.No.1009.04 declaration that Subhash had no right to the property etc. The facts leading to the litigation are as under : Vitthalrao father of the appellant held ancestral properties in the form of piece of land and house situated at village Khadkighat Tq. and District Beed. Vitthalrao died in the year 1992. It is case of the appellant/plaintiff that Vitthalrao died intestate and so she and her only sister defendant No.1 Rajani would became owner of the suit properties. She asserted that so called will propounded by her cousin brother Subhas was sham document. Subhash had no right to deal with suit properties. As said above, the defendant no.1 could succeed in showing validity of the will to the extent of the concurrent findings. Therefore, there is no substantial question law arises in this appeal. Thus, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application No.7200 of 2004 for stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/