1 S.A.No.232_2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.232 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders P.P. Killedar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Avinash B. Avhad, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Appellant is the original 2nd opponent in the application filed by the first respondent before the trial Court for letters of administration in respect of the Will dated 21st December,1998 of one Mithilesh Kumari. As there was a contest to the said application, the same was treated as a suit. Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the Appellate Court has granted letters of administration. 2. The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the first respondent failed to establish that he was adopted son of the testator. The second submission is that the 2 S.A.No.232_2010 Will clearly purports to make a bequest in favour of the first respondent on the ground that he is the adopted son and unless the adoption is proved, the Will cannot be held as proved. He submitted that the attesting witness examined before the Court did not state in what manner the Will was prepared by the testator and therefore, his evidence cannot be accepted. 2. I have considered the submissions. In proceeding for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed or probate, the only issue to be decided by the Court is regarding legal and valid execution of the Will. It is settled position that in such proceedings, the issue regarding title of the deceased testator to the properties affected by the Will cannot be decided. The Will propounded by the first respondent was a registered Will. Attesting witness was examined who stated that the Will was signed by the testator in his presence as well as in the presence of other attesting witnesses. He deposed about the 3 S.A.No.232_2010 presence of the advocate who had read over the Will before the execution. The perusal of the cross examination of the witness shows that the challenge was on the manner in which Will was prepared before its execution. In examination in chief, the witness clearly deposed about execution of the will by the deceased. 3. The finding of the fact recorded by the Appellate Court is that the execution of the Will was proved. No substantial question of law arises. The proof of the contention raised by the first respondent that he was an adopted son of the deceased testator has no relevance to the issue regarding the proof of Will. Merely because letters of administration is granted, the same would not amount to the proof of first respondent’s status as the adopted son of the testator and that issue remains open for decision in appropriate proceedings. Even the right of the deceased testator to the properties allegedly held by her is not decided in the present proceeding and the 4 S.A.No.232_2010 said issue is also remains open. Subject to what is observed above second appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application No.679 of 2010 does not survive hence disposed off. [ A.S.OKA, J ]