-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.412 OF 2004 1.Shri Madhukar Tayappa Bandgar, .. Appellant (Orig.Plff) Vs 1.Smt Tarabai Bhim Bachute and ors Respondents. (Orig.Defts) Mr Vijay Killedar i/b Mr Nitin Jamdar, for the appellant. Mr Jaydeep Deo i/b P.K.Dhakephalkar, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 19.12.2006 DATE : 19.12.2006 DATE : 19.12.2006 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in a suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration that he is the owner of the suit lands and for injunction restraining defendant no.1 perpetually from obstructing his possession thereof. The appellant claims right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of a Will dated 17.1.1976 executed by his grand father, that is, father of his mother who died on 26.10.1978. The trial Court, after having considered the evidence led by the plaintiff to prove the Will in -2- paragraph 12 of the judgment, and the appeal court in paragraphs 10,11,12 and 13, have recorded a categoric finding that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the Will. Mr Killedar, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the Will was registered document and one of the attesting witnesses to the Will supported its execution. In my opinion, both the courts below have appreciated this aspect in proper prospective and, for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned judgments, have rightly dismissed the suit. I am satisfied that the case involves no substantial question of law. Keeping that in view and considering the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and as I find that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering the extremely limited jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of C.P.C to disturb the findings of fact, this appeal fails and is dismissed as such. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)