1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2007 (Nandkishore Shrinarayan Agrawal vs. Smt. Ratnabai Bachulal Padia) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 19, 2009. Heard Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for the respondent. Both the Courts below have found Will (Exh. 326) to be shrouded by suspicious circumstances. With the assistance of Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant and Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff, I have perused the judgments of Courts below. The Will as executed in 1957 has seen the light of the day after 25 years. The Will is unregistered and only attesting witness then available, Shri Mohanlal, was examined to prove it. The version of Mohanlal about disclosing said Will either to defendant or to his father immediately after death of executant Ramkisan is found to be unreliable. The Courts have also found that the 2 deceased Ramkisan was having considerable business with two Diwanjees to assist him and therefore, he could not have executed a Will in such a manner. The Will was found to be type written. A tape recorder in which conversation with Mohanlal, admitting that he signed a Will in the year 1982, was also produced before the lower Court. The affidavit of Mohanlal in support of execution of said Will (Exh. 327) revealed that in it he has disclosed only about putting of his signature on said Will and did not say anything about other attesting witness Jankiprasad. The consideration of evidence by both the Courts does not appear to be perverse. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. JUDGE *GS.