1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.830/2003 Mr.Shahaji Krishna Pawar and others. ..Appellants/plaintiffs -VERSUS- Smt.Parvati W/o Chintu Pawar and others. ..Respondents/defendants ......... Mr.Dilip Bodake, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Closed for orders: 02/03/2009 Dictated on:24/03/2009. P.C. : 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing their suit. 2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for confirmation of their possession over the agricultural lands which formed the subject 2 matter of the suit and in the alternative, for decree of possession in the event it is held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit lands. The suit has been filed on the basis of the Will executed by one Chintu Pawar. It is an admitted position that the suit lands were originally owned by one Krishna Pawar. Chintu Pawar was cultivating the agricultural lands and thus, the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and ultimately, ownership was conferred on Chintu Pawar in those proceedings under Section 32(G). Chintu Pawar, thus, became the exclusive owner of the property. The Will on the basis of which the suit is filed is dated 25.03.1980 purported to have been executed by Chintu Pawar. The Will excludes the near relations of Chintu Pawar i.e. his wife and four daughters from inheriting the property. Thus, this is the first suspicious circumstance that the property has been bequeathed in favour of the outsiders. During the life time of Chintu Pawar, the Will was not registered, however, it was registered in the year 1983 i.e. almost after a period of three years. The Courts below have held that registration of the Will was intended to seek credence to the Will. The Will dated 25.03.1980 has been rejected on various grounds such as signatures of attesting witnesses not tallying, beneficiaries and attesting witnesses were from the same village where Rukminibai, the mother of plaintiffs, resides and one of the attesting witnesses being real brother of Rukminibai. According to the plaintiffs the testator had desire to return the lands to the plaintiffs as 3 they were illegally deprived of the lands by claiming tenancy rights by Chintu Pawar. The Courts below have rightly observed that the Will does not make any mention of this alleged intention on the part of the testator. The Courts below have also found variance in the pleadings and proof about the crucial aspects in relation to the Will. It is pleaded in the plaint that Rukminibai (mother of plaintiffs) had found the Will after the death of Chintu Pawar. It is not pleaded that the Will was executed in the presence of mother of the plaintiffs. Taking overall view of the matter and having regard to the probabilities, both the Courts below have held that the Will dated 25.03.1980 does not confer any title on the plaintiffs. Having so concluded, the suit came to be dismissed and the first appeal as well has been dismissed. 3. Barring the submissions touching appreciation of evidence, no substantial question of law is raised. I am in concurrence with appreciation of evidence by the Courts below that the Will in question does not confer any title on the plaintiffs. It will not be out of place to mention that two of the defendants, who happened to be daughters, also tried to introduce the Will dated 24.02.1982 i.e. allegedly executed when Chintu was hospitalized for a period of 08 days prior to his death, when he was critically ill. That means the Will dated 24.02.1982 was executed three days before the death of Chintu Pawar in the hospital on 27.02.1982. The Courts below have also rejected the said Will for the reason that the Will was allegedly executed when the testator was not in fit mental and physical 4 condition and in sound disposing state of mind. In the Will introduced by two of defendants, the property has been bequeathed in favour of two daughters alone to the exclusion of two daughters and wife. 4. Perused the impugned judgment, the same does not call for any interference as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. In the result, Second Appeal is summarily dismissed. JUDGE