ORDER 1. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2005 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in Civil Appeal No.18-A/2004 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2003 passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class-I Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.222-A/2002 has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the appellants for declaration, possession, partition and injunction has been dismissed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the only issue involved in the present appeal is the question of perversity of the judgment of the Courts below in appreciating and considering the document Exhibit P-4, which is a Will in favour of the appellants and the statement of the witnesses PW 2 Devrao and Shankerlal PW 3. It is submitted that these two witnesses have affirmed the execution of the Will, Exhibit P-4, and in such circumstances the Courts below have committed perversity in rejecting the claim of the appellants based on the Will. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, it is observed that the Courts below have extensively considered and discussed the evidence of Devrao PW 2 and Shankerlal PW 3 as well as the Will Exhibit P-4. The Courts below have stated that admittedly Ginduji, the executor of the Will, was not in a fit mental and physical state and that the Will contains the left hand thumb impression of Ginduji. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Courts below have held that it was necessary and incumbent upon the appellants to establish the antecedent circumstances regarding the mental and physical health of the executor of the Will Ginduji; the fact that the Will was dictated in accordance with his instructions; that it was typed out in accordance with his instructions; that it was read out to him and he understood the same; and that after having done so he has affixed his left thumb impression on the Will on his own free will. The Courts below have also held that all these things were necessary for the appellants to prove, plead and establish as the executor of the Will was admittedly illiterate. 4. The Courts below have also held that all these things were necessary for the appellants to prove, plead and establish as the executor of the Will was admittedly illiterate. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid lacuna in the evidence of the appellants, the Courts below have held that the blank superficial statement of the witnesses PW 2 Devrao and PW 3 Shankerlal was not sufficient to prove and establish the Will. 5. I find that the findings, recorded by the Courts below, are in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 ; Rani Purnima Debi and another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another, AIR 1962 SC 567 ; Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and others, AIR 1964 SC 529 , Bhagat Ram and another vs. Suresh and others, (2003) 12 SCC 35 and of this Court in the case of Sitaram Dubey (since deceased) Smt. Geeta Dubey, through her L.R's and others v. Manaklal (since deceased) Smt. Raina Bai, through her L.R's and others 2013(4) MPHT 48, and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal. The finding, recorded by the Courts below, being concurrent finding of fact, do not warrant any interference by this Court. The appeal, filed by the appellants, being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.