IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2008 Subhash Ramchandra Chelekar...... ...... ...... Appellant V/s Ganapati Ramchandra Chelekar...... ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.S.M.Oak with Mr.Sagar A. Joshi, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.Ajay A. Joshi, Adv. For respondent No.1. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 25th NOVEMBER, 2008. PC: The appellant is the original defendant No.3. The respondent is the original plaintiff. Special Civil Suit No.141/92 was filed for partition and separate possession. Same was partly decreed in respect of some agricultural properties and dismissed in respect of land gat Nos.1119, 1222, 1470 and 3433 situated at Mangalweda. Respondent No.1-plaintiff was not given partition in these properties on the ground that the said properties were bequeathed on appellant- original defendant No.3 by his grant father Pandu. 2. The respondent-plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.215/99 before the lower appellate court. By the impugned judgment and decree his appeal came to be allowed. The lower appellate court after hearing both the sides concluded that the will deed dated 29.1.69 allegedly executed by grant father of appellant-defendant No.3 is not 1 proved in as much as out of two attesting witnesses one is dead and another witness though examined has not supported the case of the plaintiff-defendant No.3. I have gone through the deposition of attesting witness by name Mahadev Mali. The attesting witness nowhere states that deceased Pandu had put his thumb impression on the will deed in his presence. In that view of the matter I do not find any error apparent on the face of record. Second Appeal is without any substance. Hence the same stands dismissed. In view of disposal of the second appeal Civil Application No.1590/08 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. 25.11.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 2