-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.587 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.587 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.587 OF 2006 Mahadev Gaurishankar Kivde ...Appellant vs. Siddhappa Arjun Koli ...Respondent Mr.P.M.Mengane for the Appellant Mr.M.A.Utagikar for the Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 7, 2008. : MARCH 7, 2008. : MARCH 7, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. The Appellant is the original plaintiff in a suit simplicitor for injunction. The suit has been dismissed by the trial court and the decree has been confirmed in Appeal. 2. According to the case of the Appellant, one Kabir Kivde was a tenant in respect of the suit agricultural land. According to him, the Respondent claims to be an adopted son of the said Kabir under the deed of adoption dated 1st August 1994. According to the case made out by the Appellant, the deed of adoption is illegal and he is the only legal representative of the deceased Kabir. 3. The suit was contested by the Respondent by relying upon the deed of adoption dated 11th August 1994 as well the Will dated 25th May 1998 executed by the deceased Kabir by which -2- the suit land was bequeathed to the Respondent, one Appa and one Ashok. 4. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that in the Judgment of the Appellate Court there is no discussion regarding the challenge by the Appellant to the Will as well as the adoption deed. He submitted that the first Appellate Court has not at all discussed the issue of legality and validity of the Will. He, therefore, submitted that the Judgment of the Appellate Court is perverse. 5. I have considered the submissions. The Will set up by the Respondent of the deceased Kabir has been probated and the probate has been produced at Exh.61. In view of section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, the grant of probate is conclusive evidence of the Will. In view of grant of probate in respect of the will it was not at all necessary to discuss the evidence regarding execution of the Will. 6. Once it is held that the will is established, the Appellant cannot claim any right as the legal representative of the deceased Kabir as the succession of the property of the deceased will be governed by the Will. Hence, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -3- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE