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. 807 OF 2003. SECOND APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2003. SECOND APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2003. Smt.Gojabai Aba Patankar through Shamrao Vishnu Patankar. ... Appellant. Versus. Smt.Arundhati Hanumantrao Patankar. ... Respondent. Shri T.S.Ingle for the Appellant. Shri Paratap Patil for the Respondents Nos.5, 6 & 7. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 5th April, 2006. DATED : 5th April, 2006. DATED : 5th April, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Ingale for the Appellant and Shri Patil for Respondents Nos.5 to 7. One Gojabai filed a suit for partition and separate possession. After the demise of Gojabai, the present Appellant Shamrao applied to the trial Court for impleading himself as the legal representative of the deceased Gojabai on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Gojabai in his favour. According to the case of the Appellant, he was the legatee under the last will of Gojabai. The trial Court allowed the application made by the said Shamrao. After the amendment was carried out, the locus of the said Shamrao was disputed to proceed with the suit. Therefore, additional issues were framed on the locus of Shamrao and the existence of the will allegedly executed by the deceased Plaintiff-Gojabai. The finding of the trial Court is that the will was not established and : 2 : : 2 : : 2 : therefore, the suit was dismissed as the said Shamrao was not entitled to prosecute the suit. 2. An Appeal was preferred by the present Appellant Shamrao before the District Court and the same came to be dismissed by the appellate Court. The Appellate Court also recorded a finding that the alleged will is not proved. After having heard the submissions of Shri Ingale appearing for the Appellant, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. The Courts below have noted undisputed position that on the date of the execution of the alleged Will the age of Gojabai was about 90 years. The Appellate Court has noted that though Gojabai has signed the original plaint as well as the vakalatnama of her Advocate, the alleged Will bears the thumb impression of Gojabai. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below as regards execution of the will are based on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. No interference is permissible with such findings in a Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. Judge. Judge. Judge.