( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2008 Ku. Gurucharan Kaur d/o Hotsingh APPELLANT VERSUS Santooksingh s/o Hotsingh & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr. Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The appellant is daughter of deceased Uttam Kaur. Admittedly, said Uttam Kaur held the suit property. The respondent No. 1 Santooksingh is the real brother of the appellant and he claims ownership rights under a sale-deed as well a will-deed executed by the mother i.e. Uttam Kaur. Both the Courts have held that execution of the sale-deed (Exh-72) is duly proved. The Courts below have also concurrently held that execution of the will-deed is duly proved by the attesting witness, namely, DW3 Vijay. The will-deed (Exh-75) is ( 2 ) attested by two witnesses and is a registered document. On perusal of both the judgements, it is amply clear that the documents were duly proved during course of the trial. It was contention of the appellant that the property in question was the joint family property and, therefore, she had right to claim 1/6th share therein. Both the Courts, however, negatived the contention. It has been held, after full-fledged trial, that the suit property was exclusively owned by deceased Uttam Kaur i.e. mother of the appellant and it was not part of the joint family property. Obviously, the appellant could not claim right of succession when deceased Uttam Kaur disposed of the property either by execution of sale- deed (Exh-72) and the will-deed (Exh-75) in favour of the respondent No. 1. In view of these findings of fact, there hardly appears any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa739-08 ( 3 )