1 S.A.NO.908.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.908 OF 2005 Mohd.Husan Mohd Siddik (Deceased ) Through Legal Representatives ... Appellant V E R S U S Mohammad Iliyas Abdul Sahid and others ... Respondents ... Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar,Advocate holding for Mr. M.H.Patil,Advocate for Appellant Mr. Deepak Rajput,Advocate holding for Mr. B.R.Warma,Advocate for respondents ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] This Second Appeal is challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of certain house property in Dhule Town. 2] The case of the appellant/plaintiff is under: He said his father Mohammad Siddik owned three houses at Dhule. After Siddik's death which occurred in 1980, he became absolute owner of properties belonging to his father. The appellant/plaintiff was the only son of his father, but he had one sister by name Jubeda, whose son Mohammad Iliyas and his children are the defendants. It was their case that prior to Siddik's death he executed Will and bequeathed his property between the appellant/plaintiff and the 2 S.A.NO.908.05 respondent No.1 Iliyas. So, they said that the suit deserves to be dismissed. 3] The appellant/plaintiff challenged the genuineness of the Will, but the Courts below concurrently held that the respondent proved the Will. Having gone through the evidence in support of the Will, the view taken by the Courts below can not be said to be incorrect. 4] The appellant also asserted that assuming the Will was executed, the respondents should have obtained his consent after the testator's death because the testator had bequeathed more than 1/3rd of his property to the respondents. The Courts below held that the respondents had proved that the appellant had given implied consent for the Will and bequests in their favour. The lower Courts held that soon after the death of Siddik, in the year 1980, the appellant/plaintiff became aware of the contents of the Will and he had not taken any action about it, till he filed the suit in 1986. His silence on this issue amounting to his implied consent. Even this finding is not perverse and so there is no interference called for. There appears no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK ok 3 S.A.NO.908.05