1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.310 OF 2010 [RAMESH KRISHNARAO MUNGASE ..VS.. DEEPAK KRISHNARAO MUNGASE] AND SECOND APEPAL NO.312 OF 2010 [RAMESH KRISHNARAO MUNGASE & OTHERS ..VS.. DIPAK KRISHNARAO MUNGASE & OTHERS] Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J. DATED : 14t h JULY, 2010 . Heard Shri Khare, the learned counsel for the appellants. Since common questions of facts arise for consideration in these two second appeals, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The appellants are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.141/1998. The suit property consists of a house. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of will and permanent injunction restraining their brothers/ defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. According to the appellants the house property was their ancestral property and they could not have been ousted from the same. Yet another civil suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant no.1 – Ramesh for possession. The property in 2 both the suits is the same house property. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that the joint family properties belonging to the family were partitioned in the year 1959. According to the respondent no.1, the suit house was purchased by the father of the parties, from the funds, which he received from the share in the properties partitioned in the year 1959.The respondent no.1 claimed that his father had executed a will dated 30.6.1993 making a bequest of the suit property in favour of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 therefore filed Civil Suit No.45/1999 against the appellants for possession. Both the trial and the first appellate court on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the respondents had been successful in proving that the joint family properties were partitioned in the year 1959 and the suit house was purchased by the father of the parties from his own funds. The courts held that the appellants/ plaintiff did not succeed in proving that the respondents were disturbing the possession of the appellants over the suit property or were trying to dispossess them. The courts then held that the respondent no.1 proved the execution of the will dated 30.6.1993 and further proved that he became the owner of the suit property in view of the bequest made by his father in his favour. The courts therefore, dismissed the suit of the appellants bearing Civil Suit no.141/1998 and decreed the suit 3 filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the property to the respondent no1. The courts have rightly appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties on record to arrive at the aforesaid findings. The admissions of the plaintiffs and defendants were also considered by the court while recording the aforesaid findings. The courts held that it could not be said that the will was a fabricated document, merely because the stamp paper was purchased on 30.9.1992 and the will was executed actually on 30.6.1993. The courts believed the evidence of the attesting witnesses to the will and rejected the submission of the appellants that the field properties and house properties could not have been granted only to the two sons when their father had other issues. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeals therefore fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.