IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.383 OF 2010. (UTTAM DEVIDAS BHONE....VS... AMBADAS TUKARAM BHONE.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Shri A.P. Tathod, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : AUGUST 25, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the house and the agricultural land. According to the plaintiff, Tukaram, the father in law of the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and he had made a bequest of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by a will dated 02.11.2001. Since the defendant, the uncle of the plaintiff, had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property, the plaintiff also sought possession of the suit property from the defendant. 3. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit property was not the absolute property of Tukaram but was the property of Sakharam, the father of Tukaram. Tukaram had two brothers and according to the defendant, the property of Sakharam became the property of the sons of Sakharam, including Tukaram. Tukaram was managing the ancestral property owned by the brothers. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. 4. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that Tukaram was the absolute owner of the property and had made a bequest of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Both the Courts held that the property was the ancestral property of Sakharam and Tukaram was merely managing the same. For recording this finding, both the Courts relied on the evidence of Kauslyabai, the widow of Tukaram, who admitted that the suit property was ancestral property owned by Sakharam, the father of Tukaram. The Courts relied on the documents produced by the defendant along with the admission of Kauslyabai to hold that the suit property was not the absolute property of Tukaram and the plaintiff could not have claimed ownership in pursuance of the will dated 02.11.2001, which was not validly proved by the plaintiff. 5. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.