: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.75 OF 2010 Musa Suleman Mukadam .. Appellant V/s. Sadika Ekbal Pavaskar & Anr. .. Respondents Ms. Alpa Javeri i/b. Ms. Teja Katdare for the Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Patil for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 20 TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. The appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below i.e. Judgment and Decree dated 8th July, 2007 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2006 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ratnagiri and Judgment and Order dated 7th August, 2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.39 of 2007 by the District Judge, Ratnagiri. 2. The appellant had challenged the Will of one Maryambi on two grounds; firstly that the Will was bogus and secondly that Maryambi had beaquethed her entire property under the Will and, therefore, the Will was not in consonance with Muhammadan Law. : 2 : 3. Both the Courts below have found that the appellant has not been able to prove that he has related to Maryambi. Both the Courts below have therefore not entertained the objections raised by the appellant to the Will of Maryambi. 4. In my opinion, the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are not perverse and have been recorded after considering the evidence available before the Court. In fact, as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the respondents, the appellant was unable to prove that he was related to Maryambi or that either he or his grand father (through whom he claimed the suit property) was in any way connected with the suit property. 5. The Second Appeal is dismissed as no substantial questions of law arise for determination by this Court.