1 sa237.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6435 OF 2011 Manohar s/o Sopan Bhandare, Age-55 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Borda, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Savita w/o Dnyanoba Bhandare, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. C/o. Dnyanoba Ramrao Bhandare (Teacher) Dnyaneshwar Vidyalaya, Near Hutatma Smarak Mandir, Jintur, Tq. Jintur Dist. Parbhani and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.R. Dheple, Advocate for appellant/applicant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that, it has come on record that Gangubai used to sign on blank papers and give it to Dnyanoba-husband of 2 sa237.11 the plaintiff and Dnyanoba-husband of the plaintiff misused the said papers and forged will deed is prepared. According to the Counsel for the appellant, Gangubai was suffering from ailment in her last days and therefore, document i.e. will deed which is placed on record, is not by free will and with the consent of Gangubai. The appellant herein is relatives of Gangubai and since Gangubai and her sister Sunderabai had no issue, they are entitled to the properties of Gangubai. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, since Gangubai used to sign on blank papers, the husband of the plaintiff has misused the said papers and such alleged will deed has been prepared. Therefore, learned Counsel further submits that, the evidence placed on record by the appellant to show their possession through the evidence of D.W. No.2 Vithal Namdeo Uphade is to the effect that the appellant is in possession of the suit property. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, second appeal deserves consideration. 3 sa237.11 2. Upon hearing the Counsel for the appellant and upon careful perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court and in particular para-6 of the said judgment, lower appellate Court has recorded categorical findings that the will deed produced on record is duly proved by respondent No.1 in the appeal. The evidence of P.W. 2 is to the effect that such will deed is signed by Gangubai. P.W. 2 Baburao is attesting witness to the said document. The lower appellate Court has further observed that, convincing evidence about ailing of Gangubai has not been brought on record by the appellant. Both the Courts have recorded the findings of fact that the plaintiff used to take care of Gangubai and out of love and affection, Gangubai has executed will deed in favour of the original plaintiff. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully perused the grounds/substantial questions of law 4 sa237.11 taken in the second appeal. None of the grounds/substantial questions of law appeals to this Court to consider this appeal on any of the questions of law. As stated earlier, both the Courts after appreciation of evidence and document i.e. will deed, attesting witness to the will deed, have reached to the definite conclusion that Gangubai with free will has executed the said will deed. The Courts have also recorded and appreciated the evidence of the attesting witness to the will deed. Therefore, in my considered opinion, second appeal does not raise any substantial questions of law for consideration. Second appeal is devoid of any merits, same stands rejected. Consequently, Civil Application stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11