Madan Lal @APPELLANT@Hash Shri Gajendra Kumar Kanda

Instant second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi whereby the

appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 12.12.2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

No.2, Bundi in Civil Suit No.31/1992 was confirmed.

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit wherein it is stated that Shri Ram Narayan Kudal was living in his

ancestral house situated in Mohalla Dhobaiyon Ka Chowk and the same was of exclusive ownership and possession of Shri Ram Narayan Kudal.

Smt. Gopali Bai, wife of Shri Ram Narayan, was living separately for the last 35 years and she had no concern with Shri Ram Narayan Kudal. Shri

Ram Narayan Kudal got executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 25.12.1986. By virtue of the said Will dated 25.12.1986, it is claimed that the

plaintiff is owner and in possession over the suit property.

The defendants-respondents resisted the suit by filing written statement wherein it is stated that Gopali Bai, who is the wife of Shri Ram Narayan

Kudal, is continuously living with late Shri Ram Narayan Kudal and the alleged Will dated 25.12.1986 is forged and fabricated. Shri Ram Narayan

Kodal was not mentally and physically fit and had lost all the senses. Defendantsrespondents are not trespassers of the property.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed necessary issues.

Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereafter, learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant vide

judgment and decree dated 12.12.2005 against which an appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

10.09.2009.

Appellant Madan Lal is present in the Court and has submitted that since the trial court has not given appropriate opportunities to produce attesting

witness of the Will, therefore, the matter may kindly be remitted back to the trial court to decide the same afresh. Learned trial court has not

considered the documentary evidence in right perspective.

I have considered the submission made by the appellant and perused the material available on record.

It is revealed from the record that Shri Ram Narain Kodal has no right, title or interest in the disputed property and he has no right to execute the will

in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. It is also transpired that the will has not been proved by the appellant-plaintiff since attesting witness of the will has

not been examined. Therefore, in view of the Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the said will was not proved.

A perusal of the impugned judgments of both the learned courts below reveals that while recording their findings, both the learned courts below have

properly appreciated the evidence available on record in accordance with law. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned courts below being findings

of facts require no interference of this Court in second appeal. This Court is of the view that no question of law, much less any substantial question of

law is involved in the instant second appeal.

Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.